11 -- Creation 'Science' Made Easy

From WikiCaptions

Jump to: navigation, search

potholer54145,516 views
Interactive transcript
 [
, 
]
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

Charmaine Yoest> 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.

Potholer54> 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 matter with open minds. They made conclusion based on evidence, not their religious beliefs. Surely the knowledge they've handed down to us will never be kept from our children.

Ken Ham> We have a revelation of one 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: Ahh! 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.

John Pendleton> What is the age of the age of the earth? When did the creation actually occur? And of course we gonna go to the bible.

Charmaine Yoest> How we are making advancements in science is being open to all different perspectives and that's all what we're calling for.

Potholer54> Let's qualify that. Fundamentalist 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 built the pyramids. What they want is to be able to teach just one different perspective and a fundamentalist lobby is running a well targeted campaign to convince parents, not just in the US 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 origins 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 recognise and to be honest about is that this has nothing to do with science.

Ken Ham> We take that revelation, put our set of glasses...

Potholer54> 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 realised, it wasn't a great way to break into science curriculum. So the label was dropped, in favour of something that was much vaguer but sounded more thoughtful. Intelligent design takes a simple two step approach: 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 putting it into 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 seem 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's rigorously tested. Only when a 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 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 schools 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 that fill the entire science curriculum. As for the notion that the scientific community is divided, OK, 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's an overwhelming consensus. The people who are calling for their ideas to be injected into the science curriculums are outside the scientific community and are happy to display a breathtaking ignorance of the subject they're tackling.

Ben Stein> Somehow that microorganism grows, reproduces, swims, crawls...

Potholer54> 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's not excuse for denying our children a decent science education insisting instead that they're dumbed down to our level of ignorance. And should we really be telling children that if they come up against a problem as a scientist 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 gotten 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 colour know where it had to go in the rainbow and how did they all know how to form a perfect semi-circle together? The only way these colours could be put into such a perfect and regular pattern is if an intelligent designer was arranging them. Intelligent design, like creation science makes scientific research futile. And not just in the field of biology. Intelligent designers like Kent Hovend define evolution as everything from the unfolding of the Universe to the deep position of sedimentary rocks. Cosmology, Geology, Physics, Archaeology - 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 perspectives or both sides of an imaginary scientific debate, the aim is to make science look murky 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 who admit errors, correct them and modify hypothesis 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 hypothesis are taught alongside verified theories, we're reducing the idea of science to just a barrow 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 are not opening the young minds, we're emptying them. The intrusion into science teaching threatens a number of countries but none more than so the United States. A hundred years the ago the USA were admired as a technological powerhouse; in the technologies of the twentieth century, the United States were unsurpassed. The reality of the 21st century is that new technologies have emerged and other countries are catching up. It may be hard to fair them 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 debunk a religious lobby, or dilute scientific facts to conform to ancient religious texts. They're already preparing the next generation of scientists. Are we?

Ken Ham> Who should you always trust first, God or the Scientists?

audience> God!

Ken Ham> God! And I want you to remember that!

Author's description [hide]
Creation Science is fairly simple to understand. The conclusion is laid out for you -- just read Genesis -- so there's nothing to investigate. The question is whether this really is science. Even if it isn't, should it be taght in school as a way of 'opening' young minds?
   This is the penultimate video in the 'Made Easy' series, which looks at the evidence showing our origins, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa.
  
Music: Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' (Leonard Bernstein, pianist and conductor)
You need JavaScript enabled for viewing comments


Thanks to potholer54 for providing transcript.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikicaptions.org/wiki/Youtube:xO7IT81h200"
Personal tools