Evolution v Creationism Videos

| 4 Comments | 1 TrackBack

This is pretty cool, a webpage full of videos about evolution and creationism with various scientists and philosophers that should be familiar to readers of this blog. They include Ken Miller, Genie Scott, Barbara Forrest and Kevin Padian.

4 Comments

The website (going by the domain name) appears to be a neutral debate, but none of the speakers represent the opposing viewpoint. I was kind of hoping for a good debate.

Does Ed Brayton agree with everything in the videos? He seems rather uncritical of them (whereas other items on PT are addressed point-by-point). A few of the arguments put forth by the speakers are common misconceptions and often challenged repeatedly by creationists. For instance, in the introduction video, Barbara Forest, Ph.D. says, “…a segment of the U.S. population who, for religious reasons, has never been able to accommodate modern science, and even most aspects of the modern world.” This doesn’t seem to settle well with half of the U.S. population, or creationists who hold multiple doctorates, or, say, ICR, who conduct modern research, or the creationists I’ve met that have cars, computers and vacuum cleaners. I just mention that because some of the points raised by the speakers would not hold up in an Internet discussion with creationists, yet Ed Brayton seems to be fine with propagating these points, even though they do affirm evolution. This website doesn’t seem to be a quality website for Internet discussion fodder.

Excellent. This is what the scientists should be doing. creationism/ID (and particularly YECism) is not going to go away by just ignoring it. They (the scientists) should make this type of thing available on DVD and distribute it around schools !

Argh. YouTube. How about making the raw videos available so we can put them on an iPod and watch them offline?

Fred, do you really think Barbara Forrest is unaware that creationists use cars and computers? Obviously her point is that resistence to evolution is religiously based, not scientifically based, which is readily apparent to anyone familiar with this debate. It makes little difference how many Americans this applies to, or how many multiple doctorates are among them. It is worth noting, however, that the overwhelming majority of post graduate degrees among creationists are not in the relevant fields for studying evolution, such as biology, geology, or paleontology. Having multiple doctorates in philosophy and art history do not add much credibility to one’s opinions of biology.

As for the supposed modern research of the ICR, where? On what subjects? Published where? This phantom claim of creationism research under double secret probation is getting tiresome.

And finally, these damning facts do not affirm evolution. They discredit creationism, but as creationists are constantly having to be told, discrediting one side does not lead to victory by default. One must put forth positive evidence for one’s side, something scientists have been doing with evolution for years, and which the intelligent design crowd keeps promising but never delivering. It is the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution that affirms it, and the marked paucity of such evidence on the creationism side that damns it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ed Brayton published on February 15, 2007 4:49 PM.

Note from Kansas was the previous entry in this blog.

Worldnetdaily Flogs Dead Sternberg Horse is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter