Wow, Kirk Cameron, now there is a source that I would accept less readily that the Bible.

Claim #1 - Why are humans and apes similar - they have a common "designer"
Response: Perhaps they have a common ancestor, as evolution claims; no need for an additional, non-parsimonious designer.

Claim #2 - Interviewing "believers" in evolution.
Note the sarcastic response of the blonde college student. Why didn't they go to the "experts?" They seem to conclude that because these people don't have detailed answers, therefore evolution is wrong and they believe it on blind faith. I wonder how many people that believe in God could tell you chapter and verse (or even who said) of biblical passages. By that same logic, I suppose we can dismiss the bible, because its believers pretty much know jack about what is in it.

Claim #3 - "Does THIS PROVE that man evolved from apes?"
Response: Only the creationist trying to make claims about the invalidity of evolution claims to believe that man evolved from apes.

"Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html

Claim #4 "Apes aren't our relatives, they are a completely different species" Their evidence, that the orangutan tries to eat their salad ("covets their salad", something the purposefully made different than what the orangutan has. It acts like a "beast untrained").

I suppose small children are also not related to humans, a different species perhaps; they too act like this so called "beast untrained." They "covet" things that they do not have and grab for objects; they do things such as defecate on themselves. They throw things as well; perhaps some training can get their "beast" to make facial experessions mimicking Kirk Cameron.

Interestingly, they also say that the orangutans don't form themselves into orchestras. Neither do children, now without guidance for sure.

Claim #5 - Something is not in the fossil record and "proof" of a claim.
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and certainly the false dichotomy that "evolution is wrong, therefore Biblical creation must be correct" is absurd. Also, scientists do not "prove" something to be true. They provide evidence in favor or against a particular claim.

Claim # 6: "Experts" speculation about evolution as support that evolution is foolish.

Ernst Chain (not ERNEST as they put in the video) and others. Speculation by experts does not make their claim valid. Sir Isaac Newton , clearly a great thinker spent much of his days as an alchemist trying to change lead into gold; just because someone is a 'great thinker' does not mean that all his or her ideas are valid.

Claim # 7 "Man will believe anything as long as its not in the Bible"
Better yet, man will believe anything, period, including that a text which has how many versions and ambiguities in the very words that are used was "divinely inspired!" Why SHOULD man believe the Bible? Because it provides the simplistic "god did it" response? OK, now we can move on and continue making our widgets, all of the necessary knowledge can be summed up in "god did it."



Why don't they tell you who the biologist with the PhD is? Why don't we hear more than what they clip?

Are they trying to be "anti-intellectual?" Yes. They select "proof" of their side (the confirmation bias, clearly unscientific.)

At the end, ahhhh we get to the real point. See, there is no "evidence" presented in this video, just some carefully selected and edited clips.

Kirk Cameron....enough said.