Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
"I think our children
have more
robust intelligence
and questioning
to be able to cope
with looking at all the different theories
that are out there."
"looking at all the different theories that are out there"
I agree
I wish there was time for children to learn
all the different theories
they were shaped
by extraordinary people
who decided to observe the stars
the rocks, life
heat, light, and the matter
with open minds
they made conclusions based on evidence
not their religious beliefs
surely, the knowledge they handed down to us
will never be kept from our children
"We have a revelation from someone who says
I know everything, I've always been there
here's what happened in the past
So when we take that revelation
put on our set of glasses
and we look at the evidence, we can say
Aah! Now I understand, fossils couldn't have formed
before sin, there was no death before sin,
there was a global flood
that connects to geology..."
"64 percent of America surveyed are open to the idea of teaching creationism in school science class."
"What is the age of the Earth?
When did the creation actually occur
and of course, we're going to go to the Bible"
"How we make advances in science
is by being open to all different perspectives
that's all that we're calling for."
Let's qualify that
Fundamentalists don't advocate teaching
all of the thousands of different
perspectives that are out there
like the idea
that the Earth is expanding
or that Aliens from
another planet helped
build the pyramids
what they want, is to be able to teach
just one different perspective
and the fundamentalist lobby is running
a well-targeted campain to convince parents
not just in the United States
but also in other countries
of two things
that creation science and Intelligent Design
are Science
and that there is a real debate about our origin
is going on within the scientific community
and let's face it
most people don't know that much about science
or about what goes on within
the scientific community
so the first thing to recognize
and to be honest about
is that this
has nothing to do with science
"We take that revelation, put on our set of glasses"
As I explained in the last video
the Scientific Method Made Easy
starting with a conclusion
and then looking for the evidence afterwards
shatters the first golden rule
of science
it's not even the way our courts operate
if you know your conclusion in advance
why even bother looking at the evidence
any kind of scientific research
becomes futile
this is so obvious even to non-scientists
that advocates of creation science
soon realized it wasn't a great way
to break into the science curriculum
so the label was dropped
in favor of something that was much vaguer
but sounded more thoughtful
Intelligent Design takes a simple
two step approch
find something complicated that we don't
yet understand
and conclude that because we don't understand it
the best explanation is to assume
the work of an invisible being
or to put it in a way that sounds
a little more scientific
an intelligent designer
in fact, researchers who've applied
the scientific method to these
supposedly intractable problems
have discovered their origins
consistent with what we know and understand
even for things that seemed to be
very unintelligently designed
but even if they hadn't
this leap from problem to conclusion
is not how science works
as we saw in the last video on the
scientific method
real scientists investigate
things we don't understand
however complicated
until they come up with a workable hypothesis
based on that hypothesis
they then make a prediction
that is rigorously tested
only when an hypothesis
has been successfully tested
can a conclusion be reached
Advocates of Intelligent Design
aren't prepared to make predictions
let alone test them
so it's not science
maybe not even a hypothesis
because Intelligent Design doesn't
explain the process by which organisms
were designed and made
it would be just as useful to say
it all happened by magic
so the two sides of this
supposed debate
are beginning to look decidedly unequal
the theory of Intelligent Design isn't a theory at all
it's an untested idea
and we never include untested ideas
in the school science curriculum
not only because they haven't been reviewed or verified
or derived by the scientific method
but because there are so many untested ideas out there
they'd fill the entire science curriculum
as for the notion that the scientific
community is divided
Okay, on one side we have biologists
including many christian, muslim
jewish and hindu biologists
who accept evolution
and on the other side we have biologists
who believe in Intelligent Design
so the scientific community isn't divided
over this question at all
there is an overwhelming consensus
the people who are calling for their ideas
to be injected into the science curriculum
are outside the scientific community
and are happy to display a
breathtaking ignorance of the subject
they're tackling
Somehow, that mud found a way to grow
reproduce
swim
crawl..."
Somehow this happened?
If Ben Stein is going to disagree
with the Theory of Evolution
at least he has to understand
how it works
people like Stein may have fallen asleep
in biology class
but there is no excuse for denying our children
a decent science education
insisting instead that they
dumb down to our level our ignorance
And should we really be telling children
that if they come up against
a problem as scientists
they shouldn't try to investigate or resolve it
it's OK to assume it's
the work of an invisible being
how far would that have got us in the last
500 years
In the 16th century
this was a key piece of evidence for
Intelligent Design
there was simply no way to explain it
how could each color know
where it had to go in the rainbow?
and how did they all know how to form
a perfect semi-cercle together
the only way these colors could be
put into such a
perfect and regular pattern
is if an intelligent designer
was arranging them
Intelligent Design, like Creation Science
make scientific research futile
and not just in the field of biology
Intelligent Design
advocates like Kent Hovind
define evolution as everything
from the unfolding of the universe
to the deposition of sedimentary rocks
cosmology, geology
physics, archeology
anything that goes against
the literal interpretation of the Bible
is under threat
So the aim of the Intelligent Design lobby
isn't to open minds
or look at all the different
perspective, or both sides
of an imaginary scientific debate
the aim is to make science look merky?
and indecisive
and cast doubt on theories that are the foundation
of our knowledge
the strength of science
are used against it
the willingness of scientists to admit errors
correct them, and to modify hypotheses
is used as proof that they can get things wrong
the word theory, the highest form
of proof you can get in science short of Mathematics
is mistranslated into uncertainty
Slowly, the solid facts established
by centuries of scientific study
are eroded. If untested hypotheses
are taught alongside verified theories
we're reducing the idea of science to just
a barrel load of ideas
and asking children to sort out for themselves
which are facts based on evidence
and which are conjecture
the result is confusion, vagueness
and disinterest
we're not opening young minds
we're emptying them
the intrusion into science teaching
threaten a number of countries
but none more so than the United States
a 100 years ago, the USA was admired
as a technological powerhouse
in the technologies of the 20th century
the United States was unsurpassed
the reality of the 21st century
is that new technologies have emerged
and other countries are catching up
it may be hard to fathom
but children in these countries spend
their time in science class
actually learning about science
teachers don't have to use up valuable time
debating the role of an imaginary designer
to placate a religious lobby
or dilute scientific facts
to conform to ancien religious texts
they're already preparing the next
generation of scientists
Are we?
"Who should you always trust first?
God or the scientists?
GOD!
God, and I want you to remember that."