Discovery Institute - Casey Luskin - Ignorance or something else?

Kirkwhisper Says:

Sep 11, 2009 - Forget Luskin whatever he has done. DonExodus lied in this clip. During the interview DonExodus put on the screen about the debate between evolution creation "There hasn't been a debate in 150 yrs:" What a notorious lie. I myself have attended public debates on the issue, viewed countless number of them on video. Has he forgotten Scopes in 1925? What was that if not a debate? Has he forgotten that Louis Aggasiz, Rudolph Virchow et all opposed evolution publicly in the late 1800's? Lie.

Kirkwhisper Says:

Sep 11, 2009 - DonExodus2 likens the creationist/I.D. movement to 'flat earthism' challenging 'legitimate' science; evolution. Garbage. "Flat earthism' didn't convert the author of the leading book on lifes origins in the 1970's (Biochemical Predestination) by Dean Kenyon from evolution. 'Flat earthism' did not convert Dr. J.C. Sanford, inventor of the biolistic gene gun from evolution. It certainly did not convert me from a belief in evolution. But real science did. Evoution is only an interpretation.

interrelation Says:

Sep 12, 2009 - Yes, the Theory of Evolution is old and obsolete now. The new one is Interrelation Theory. w3 interrelation-theory com

metlahead6 Says:

Sep 17, 2009 - you sir are and idiot :)

HelixTheThinker Says:

Sep 19, 2009 - Kirk, you're confusing 'public debates' with 'scientific debates.' Just because you see a debate about whether or not dinosaurs lived with humans, that doesn't mean there is any debate within the scientific community.

Kirkwhisper Says:

Sep 19, 2009 - t"hat doesn't mean there is any debate within the scientific community." You seem to think that the whole scientific community is all evolutionist. It isn't.

HelixTheThinker Says:

Sep 21, 2009 - "You seem to think that the whole scientific community is all evolutionist. It isn't" Fine, I'll rephrase. All properly educated (attended a top 10 college for undergrad, masters and PhD) professionals with a relevant biology degree accept evolution. Are you happy now?

rddaos Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - You have crackpots and quacks in every walk of life. You have scientists who believe in magical invisible fairies in the sky. Doesn't change the fact that creationism is flat-earthism.

rddaos Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - the bible is arguably the most idiotic book ever written in mankind's history. Go evolution!

courty64 Says:

Sep 28, 2009 - A) absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, unless you dont believe in dark matter now? B) only just really read your name, and free minds are not atheist, free minds are free to decide what they want to belive, whatever it may be C) your still missing the point about why science isnt infalable, that doesnt really matter though becuase science supports the bible depending on your interpritation of genisis you seem to think all christians are creationist? and character count sucks

courty64 Says:

Sep 28, 2009 - man, reading the coments, everyone seems really biasd one way or the other, no one here really has an open mind to the other argument at all, its pretty sad. Casey luskin is clearly thick, but he does not reprsent all christians ¬_¬ also, im from england, nd we're well aware that most of the science you learn at gcse is later shown to be wrong at a level and degree lvl, so when he says "txt books get it wrong" he is infact correct, althoug, still stupid, because there are reasons for it, sigh

gregrutz Says:

Oct 4, 2009 - 99.98% of scientist do accept evolution.

courty64 Says:

Oct 5, 2009 - 90% of stastics are made up on the spot

courty64 Says:

Oct 5, 2009 - also, thats not whats being debated anyway, their debating the way it should not taugh, not wether or not it should be taught.

gregrutz Says:

Oct 5, 2009 - Science should be taught in science class. Religion should be taught in church. ID=crationism=bible story

courty64 Says:

Oct 6, 2009 - he's not saying they should teach ID ¬_¬

gregrutz Says:

Oct 6, 2009 - "Teach the controversy" Is the latest creationist Plot.

JamesBurkeWeb Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - That is typical with these kinds of shows; "talk-show punditry" maybe? where the "guest" is set up as a punching bag ("straw man"). Maybe one 1000th of the data necessary to form any reasonable hypothesis is thrown up in rapid fire succession just to get everyone all excited. Makes for great programming and you'll sit through the commercial break to watch more because well... it's just fun to beat up on the little guy right? I just don't get this whole "opinion" thing. Why do we have them?

JamesBurkeWeb Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - More like 100%. They wouldn't be scientists if they didn't accept the notion that organisms change over time. All you have to do is talk to a pigeon breeder and follow the cook book. Science is evidence based and the evidence says organisms *do* change, and one way to cause it is by carefully breeding different varieties of animals and observe the outcome. Maybe you're referring to Darwin's theory of "Natural selection" (~artificial) having brought about all known organisms starting from zero

gregrutz Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - Evolution did not start at zero. Zero is a number.

JamesBurkeWeb Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - I'm sorry, I tried my best to say what I wanted to say in less than 500 characters. Kind of like a talk show. "Zero" was the shortest word (notice the missing full-stop) I could fit in that would hint at what I have to type in now: Some fairly simply molecules combined to form amino acids through massive electrostatic discharge from the atmosphere and at some point spontaneously developing the characteristic of self-replication (57 left)... and 100 more boxes of stuff you can easily look up.--

JamesBurkeWeb Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - I should note, as so many people seem to get the two concepts mixed up, that evolution is an observed fact of nature and that Charles Darwin offered a *theory* that could explain the multitude of species that currently exist on the planet, and why they exist in form that they do today. The original title of the book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" (1859), was later shortened to "The Origin of Species"(1872)

Mechelle68 Says:

Oct 11, 2009 - Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. It would be a catastrophe to teach Literature in a Physics class. Or to teach History in Microbiology. Teaching ID/Creationism in the science class would make as much sense. It's not science. I've been in evolution/creation debates for years and creationists have been invited to produce any evidence they have for scientific peer review. Nada.

Mechelle68 Says:

Oct 11, 2009 - And without a doubt, we'll see more "scientists" promoting ID/Creationism, because of the Wedge movement. It's a goal to bring people into certain Universities, such as Liberty University, give them an "education in science" so they can earn a PhD where they can go out into the community to speak out against evolution. Their PhD is suppose to convince lay people that evolution is bogus. They discovered their "degrees" they got from diploma mills weren't convincing.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - Casey Luskin's right on Haeckel's embryos.