TV Schedule

Gods and Dinosaurs


  3. embed code
  4. binowhite
  5. related topics
Intelligent Design offers itself as an alternative explanation to the theory of evolution. As scientists, theologians, and school boards continue to argue the merit of the idea, Joe Hanson hits the street to street to the bottom of the debate.
binowhite

11 responses // Gods and Dinosaurs

  • Every person depicted in this well-crafted production, "What''s Wrong With Intelligent Design?", has an equal vote in school board elections all across this country. It demonstrates the effectiveness of those who have been training people to think poorly, that is, to reach a conclusion without bothering to check the appropriate evidence. It even teaches them to ignore the appropriate evidence. It proves there is feedback promoting bad thinking.

    When the non-property owner legislates for the property owner, the interests of the non property owner will reign supreme... unless the clarity with which people see those interests can be made muddy and confused; and into the ensuing darkness led. <who hoo hoo hoo!>

    The evolutionary Generate-Test-Regenerate feedback loop is complete in the case of education-- under the watchful eyes of elected boards. Boards who were elected by citizens who do not understand the facts and vote based upon their misunderstanding of the issues will guarantee that the next cycle of voters will be confident and, at the most, equally uneducated and uninformed of the issues and of what is in their own interests. They will then select the candidates who educate their children, the future voters of America.

    We have seen the completion of the circle where the children of those manipulating the process, to prevent the non-property owner from being clear thinking enough to make competent decisions, are formed and educated in the system of their ancestor''s creation.

    This explains why there is no such thing as evolution. Since, in the random world of truth created by this selection process, there is just as likely to be decay as progress, no long term and self-sustaining progress is possible. Only a mind like ours could have created the world we understand. "Progress in education" is just elitist liberal jargon. Don''t look at the President: look at those who support him and you will know that evolution is just as likely to go backwards as forwards, and therefore never can happen over the long term.
    rp518dan
  • Intelligent Design is rife with problems, not the least of which is that it really is creationism in disguise. Creationism is NOT science!
    Most I.D. supporters have a flawed understanding of evolution. They tend to think of it as a completely random process, which it is not. Genetic mutation is random, but natural selection is NOT.
    But Intelligent Design''s problems don''t end there. Let''s look at how I.D. proponents make claims about life and why it must be designed. I.D. supporters often make the "watchmaker" analogy, which states that if you were to find a pocketwatch on the beach, you know just by looking at it that it was designed, just as you can tell by the complexity of living cells that they were desgined. Well for starters, this whole analogy is false. Watches do not mutate, do not reproduce, and are not subject to natural selection. A watch is nothing like a cell! Further, the watchmaker analogy is a better argument for Evolution than Intelligent Design. After all, the watchmakoer learned to make watches from someone else, who learned from someone before him. Each time a new watchmaker learned the trade, they added new knowledge - evolution.
    I.D. proponents will often make claims about irreducible complexity, claiming that there are parts of the human body that are very complex and specific, and that removing any of the functions of these parts will make them useless. One example of this they usually make is the human eye. Unfortunately the human eye is NOT irreducably complex (no part of the anaotmy of any being is irreducibly complex). After all, during the course of evolution, any trait that gives an advantage, no matter how small, is better than nothing. Even an eye that can''t see clearly, or in color, or can''t focus, is better than nothing.
    The biggest flaw in I.D. though is the idea of a designer. The problem is this: who designed the designer? And who designed that one? There''s no way you can follow this argument back to its begining without invoking God.
    Let''s face it, Intelligent Design is merely a way to back-door religion into our schools. The ridiculous notion that we need to give any time to this discussion means we have to give equal time to other points of view that are equally silly, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.
    serialwriter
  • This is a really interesting pod. Joe Hanson is a true genius.

    Keep up the good work!!
    RevolutionJoe
  • I agree Jon Hanson <i>is</i> a genius. Great pod!
    bjlawrence11
  • Yea this is c0o0l this is c0ol I liked the pod.
    Kidryu16
  • http://current.com/items/85557791_our_monkey_relatives_...
    2pac IS alive
    2pac IS alive
    don't get it twisted


    ..where do I buy the (p)terodactyl bumper sticker?
    smorrisey
  • Pure genius!
    phoenix_fire999
  • This is missing the Kirk Cameron's "Us Christians have proof.. check out the Banana he created" theory.
    jennabean
    1 response to this
  • Awesome video!

    Even if you look at the world from a scientific and evolutionary point of view it doesn't explain WHERE everything came from in the first place. Scientists can say that Organism B evolved from Organism A but where did Organism A come from to begin with. Life and matter don't just poof out of no where.

    I'm a firm believer that God and the Universe itself have always been here but that God created the version of the Universe we are now familiar with billions and billions of years ago. He/She/It/They then created life as microscopic organisms and "nudged" them to evolve into all the different species and lifeforms that have existed in the past or do exist today.

    It just makes sense. On their own, both views seem to be lacking in one form or another. However, if you place them together to COMPLIMENT each other then all the gaps fill in.

    As for teaching it in schools, I believe all aspects should briefly be taught while keeping in mind that no one is completely sure yet and we may NEVER be sure. After that, students should be encouraged to make their own decisions.

    And who knows. Maybe we're all totally wrong.
    crystal_raye
  • The subject/debate itself is interesting but I can't say that this pod is. Trying to make interviewees look stupid by asking them stupid questions is a little old and unprofessional.
    blanch

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.