Pretty harsh on Coyne's account.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, true, jerry, coyne' to 'evolution, true, jerry coyne' - edited by xxovercastxx

http://videosift.com/video/Jerry-Coyne-Why-Evolution-Is-True
uncompressed

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.


Very eloquent, i'd only recommend getting rid of the "hard questions, foolish" bit because it sounds insulting. Otherwise it's a really well constructed explanation that even a theologist would find hard to deny.

Do you realize how dogmatic your position actually is? I mean, do you actually find your analysis here intellectually satisfying?

Are you willing to challenge your beliefs? I recommend two books for you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0890510628/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1_up_1_main_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342692277&sr=1-1&condition=used

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling


Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:

Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.

Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.

As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

Excellent, 2 Hoorays for LSD in the span of 5 minutes!

Did you read the part where all forms are "transitional/intermediate" forms? "True ancestor"? Evolution doesn't work that way.

Also, there are Precambrian fossils, but why should a YEC even care?

Typical how you totally ignored the Professor's takedown of the video's arguments, to pick on Coyne's rant against IDiots.

I read Jerry Coynes refutation so you don't have to..

"The movie repeatedly hammers home the message that the sudden appearance of all “animal forms” at the Cambrian boundary contradicts evolution’s central tenet that things evolve gradually from ancestors who were different. No matter that trace fossils and some remains of animals appear before the Burgess Shale fauna, so that that fauna didn’t represent the first animal life on Earth, and no matter that the “Cambrian explosion” was not instantaneous, but lasted between 5 and 20 million years. No, the film states that the animals arose instantaneously and implies (but does not state) that this reflects God’s creation.

One, that's an outright lie. The film clearly states that best estimations are at least 5 millions years. It also states it could have happened much quicker, but it never asserts it happened instantaneously.

That there might be trace fossils and some remains of animals completely misses the point. According to darwins theory, the pre cambian should be loaded with these transitional forms leading up to the cambrian explosion. None have been found.

The movie not only claims that there were no transitional forms representing the ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, but implies that there are no transitional forms in general. That is, of course, a lie. We have transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, land mammals to whales and seals, and so on. If sudden appearance reflects the actions of a Designer, then how do IDers explain these transitional forms? Did they — God help us — evolve?

Here is a list of the best transitional forms science has to offer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

IE, no true transitionals have been found. IE, nothing that shows one kind of thing changing into another kind.

The "refutation" also rants about various people the author doesn't like, and speculates on their motivations. The film stands on its own as honest criticism on darwins theory. It's amusing a hardcore antitheist immediately leaps in to try to prevent people from even watching it..however, I'll give people more credit than that and say it's an interesting view no matter what side of the issue you fall on. The cambrian explosion is a mystery and cannot be explained away by darwinian theory no matter how loudly people shout and stomp their feet.

Jerry Coyne watched this so you don't have to.

Also Professor Martin Brasier of Oxford, paleobiologist, points out a few of the films major mistakes.


Favourite comment from J. Coyne's blog: "It still bugles my mind how a young earth creationist can believe in the Cambrian explosion, but not the CAMBRIAN. The “designer” only knows to what depths their dishonesty will take them."

Is it just me or is Wayne Coyne an incredibly happy looking guy?

Sure you do! Just look at this banana...

>> ^gwiz665:
Where's the evidence for God? You never see "Why God exists" videos.. I wonder why..?
talks

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

would the fact i am a man a faith color or cloud my theories and conclusions in your eyes?
could you still be objective about my work knowing i had a belief system entirely different from your own?
or would you villify my work as false and unreasonable due to the fact i was a man of faith?
make it your mission to help me see reason,see the light of logic and abandon my silly,childish ways?

I think I'll let Sam Harris speak for himself, and link you this massive humiliation of Francis Collins, which he wrote a few weeks ago: http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/

I don't have a problem with Collins (or Miller, or any other religious scientists) being religious, or Christians, the problem only comes when the religion so clearly clouds peoples judgments on scientific or political issues. You could be the best scientist in the world AND wear magic Mormon underpants and a tinfoil hat while using all your money on dianetics counseling for all I care, as long as you somehow manage to maintain full scientific rigor and attitude in lectures, books and papers you do in your science. Its just that when you get down to it, neither this clownish behaviour or just regular christianity is REALLY compatible with a scientific approach. As much as I admire Miller and his butchering of creationism, he gets really dizzy when he actually tries to defend his god. In short: Yes, you can be both a great scientist and religious, but its sort of like being a great husband and occasionally cheat on your wife.

Let's talk about "miracles" and "prayer" a second...

You know Lourdes? That place in France where people go on a pilgramige to be healed? Did you know that statistically you have LESS of a chance to be healed "miraculously" if you go to Lourdes than if you don't?

The reality is that people DO go into remission naturally without the aid of prayed or god or faith or anything. The illogical assumption here is that treatment is necessary for someone to get better from something serious. The second illogical assumption is that if someone gets better, it must be because of god.

The reason miracles SEEM "miraculous" is because they are EXTREMELY RARE.

Now you tell me, which is more likely: that a person got better out of a rare case where their body was able to fight off something usually fatal and this hardly ever happens, or that a magical guy in the shy (and again, we have to take into account WHICH magical guy in the sky is "right") used unseen, unknown, and unprovable/unmeasurable forces to cure someone?

And before anyone goes down the path of "prayer helps because of the psychological effects of positive thinking..." GUESS AGAIN. Statistics have shown that positive thinking and such have no effect on getting better. You are just as likely to die if you think positive than if you don't.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080829-happy-thoughts.html

Here's a nice snippit:

"However, when Coyne and other researchers tried to intercede and treat depression among heart attack patients, they found the patient's moods improved, but the rates of second heart attack didn't. Ironically, Coyne said, the most evidence for emotion affecting health actually favors negative emotions, not positive ones. For instance, he said, we know anger and depression are correlated with having a second heart attack, however, what's unproven is whether being positive can reduce the risk."

Stress can make you get ill, but happy happy Jesus isn't going to do shit for you.