Latest / Polymath World Channel / REACTING TO CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENCE - This time I lost my cool...
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:01.87) Hi there, this is Sam McKee from the Polymath World channel. I'm doing another reaction video today. It's another one about evolution versus religion and this time we are responding to a video by a group called Genesis Apologetics. They got 231,000 subscribers and this video is called Christians Destroy Evolution with Scientific Facts with a lot of capital letters. So I'm quite intrigued. This has popped up, let's see what they have to say. Let's see them destroy evolution with scientific facts. Speaker 2 (00:37.39) Do you think you know more? A lot of experts disagree with the theory of evolution. Once again, bias creation pseudoscience doesn't count. Why does the creation bias matter, but the evolution bias doesn't? All scientists have biases. If you look at a piece of evidence having already decided evolution is a fact, you're going to find a way to make it point to evolution regardless. it's a skit. Speaker 2 (01:02.094) In 2019, over a thousand PhD holding scientists signed a statement saying they no longer found neo-Darwinian evolution to be scientifically plausible. And professors face extreme pressures to conform to 150 year old evolutionary beliefs, even though advances in chemistry, biology, and cell function all pose big challenges against the ideas of evolution. New discoveries in evolution, even discoveries that end up being exaggerated or inaccurate, bring millions of dollars in notoriety. Come on. Museums alike. Where's your proof that these evolutionary discoveries are inaccurate? Well, for starters, over 200 supposed ape men have been overturned. Then there's the famous Piltdown Man. Cool down, Speaker 2 (01:49.07) I Watch. Speaker 2 (02:42.21) How do I know who to trust? Speaker 2 (02:49.294) the interpretation from our textbook. When we see these pictures of bull ape men, it's often very different from what the actual fossils show. When we look at the actual fossils, we see that there was a lot of imagination and guesswork at play. Sometimes when I read an article that doesn't include the data, I'll Google what it says. trying to keep cool here. Speaker 1 (03:28.238) Evolutionary biologists are all liars, all liars and frauds. Give me a break. Speaker 2 (03:45.39) scientific standpoint, creation isn't a less scientific view than evolution. And in fact, it's more scientific my gosh. as our powerful creator. Speaker 1 (04:02.146) Speaker 1 (04:07.406) I don't want to do these anymore. You don't know whether to laugh or cry or get angry. Okay, I've got a lot of notes here. I mentioned at the beginning, these guys have 231,000 subscribers. That's frightening. Okay, aside from the fact this was a really poorly acted skit. quite that was quite amusing. This is this is awful. This is by far the worst. This is even worse than the Frank Churik one. What are they playing at the level of disrespect for science, level of slander in this video, the disrespect, the accusations that The hypocrisy in this video is astonishing. This is such a bad witness for Christianity. To those of you who are religious who are watching this, this is a black eye for the church. This is such a terrible witness in the behavior, in the claims, in the attitude, just in the very basis of what they're doing. Okay. So this student at the start asks, Do you think you know more than the experts? Yeah, I would love to know because they certainly do think they know more than the experts. They think they know a lot more than the experts. And this girl and this guy here, they really believe they're experts. And I would love to know what their education is and what their background is and what books they've read. I can tell you a great deal about the scientific literature they obviously haven't read. Anyway, calm down, Sam. Let's just get into it. She says experts disagree on evolutionary biology. They do not. They really don't. Speaker 1 (06:03.898) The creationists love to tell you there's this world of experts out there who think that evolutionary biology is wrong and false and dubious. remember Doug Axe saying a couple of months ago that evolutionary biology was the most pathetic theory in the history of science, which made my blood boil. What a ridiculous thing to say. Evolutionary biology, I've said this again and again and again, has never been hotter than it is today. It was described to me in Cambridge when I was a student as the fastest growing science and the reason for that is genomics. It's cheap, fast, accurate gene sequencing. The fact that you can extract intact DNA, that you can work with a molecular clock, you can do molecular phylogeny so easily, so quickly, so accurately. We have so much data, so much data is being provided. There's not enough people to cope with the data. That's why we need more people in bioinformatics. Evolutionary biology has never been hotter today because of the convergence of the advances of genetics, advances in paleo biology, archaeology, all this anthropology, all of them, consider that the Nobel Prize was awarded three years ago to Sponte Parbo for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome. It's uh, that's the highest prize the highest award ever given to the field of evolutionary biology and that was in 2022 And these these fools are just saying um, oh, it's it's so highly disputed. Um, just so ignorant. Um So yeah, there aren't experts that disagree. She says in 2019 a thousand phd scientists signed this statement Yeah, i'm sure they weren't all creationists Um, all scientists have biases. Yes, but Speaker 1 (08:03.722) She says here the creation bias versus the evolution bias as if these two students are neutral You know, we're the neutral ones and everyone who disagrees with us Yeah, they're the ones with the bias and this is what I call the the sociology of science attack and you see it in everything from flat Earth ism to anti-vax conspiracy theory All those sorts of things. It's this idea that well all scientists are human and have biases. Therefore you can throw out all the data It's completely neutral and therefore we are more objective than our opponents. It's ridiculous. It's complete misuse of sociology, of science, and it's certainly not true. The idea here that these creationists are claiming to be the more neutral, more objective ones than people in the field of evolutionary biology is so laughable. So laughable. Creation bias versus evolution bias. Evolution isn't a religion. We're talking about a heart. data science here versus a worldview. Creationism is a worldview. It's a particular lens with which certain people, certain groups interpret the Bible. It has nothing to do with science. Okay, so this bit made me particularly angry. I'll stop laughing at this point. Professors face pressure to conform. And then that's coupled with a statement the gentleman on the right said a moment later about You can lose money. It's millions of dollars if you don't conform What an ignorant thing to say it is so hard to get grants in science. It's really difficult You are fighting and scrapping for every penny of grant money you can get You are always having to produce novel new research if you could find a research project that could overturn evolutionary biology Or you could find a research project, you know hard data science one not the nonsense and intelligent design like actual science that could overturn Speaker 1 (10:11.708) You would have grant money. You would have people behind you. You would want to be that guy or that girl. The idea that just by nodding and parroting and smiling and talking about Darwin and evolution is going to get you millions in the sciences, it just proves these people have no contact with the actual sciences. They don't know how that world actually works. He said advances in cell function are overturning by evolution I don't even know what to start with that one I think we know how cells function New discoveries in evolution the She's critical here. It's painfully obvious in the video She has no idea about new what the new discoveries in evolution are, you know, they're not quoting modern evolutionary biology They're talking about things like piltdown man over 208 men have been overturned. What about the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils? We have of ancient hominids thousands. He talks about piltdown man How do know that something's a fake? You compare it to the ones that are real and it's obvious which ones are fake. Piltdown Man was obviously a fake a long, long time ago. Piltdown Man was not yesterday. Yeah. you look at the real ones and it's obvious. The experts pointed out obviously this is a fake. And yes, there have been faked dinosaur bones and fossils because once the museum industry boomed and began in the late 19th century, people thought they could make money by faking fossils and it wasn't going to work because experts are experts and they can tell what a fake is. Speaker 1 (11:52.622) So use that as evidence against evolution. No, it's evidence for evolution mistakes and frauds she mentions Lucy and homo habilis as Mistakes and frauds. What are you talking about? We don't have one Lucy skeleton creationists always get this wrong or or one homo habilis skeleton We've got thousands and thousands of bones and fossils Anyway, Archaeopteryx don't know what they're talking about with that one as if that's not evidence you can can change one gene in a chicken and it will grow scales instead of feathers. I mean, that's a pretty big tale, don't you think? Not changing over time, when they talk about coelacanth, the fact that it haven't changed over millions of years, if there's no selection pressure, you're not gonna find much change, especially in somewhere really, really cold and deep, like the deep ocean. What a stupid thing to say. Sorry, I'm losing my call, and you can tell. What fossils show versus imagination. She's saying, it's obvious when you compare the fossils to drawings in books, there's a lot of imagination. That would presume that the fossils can tell you a great deal. And if the fossils can tell you a great deal and then you can look at a drawing and say, yeah, that's wrong, that's your imagination, the fossil doesn't say that, that tells you that the fossils themselves do actually tell you a great deal about the past. So, touche. And at the end, there's some very annoying quotes I wanted to pick on here. Look at the evidence ourselves, plainly what you're not doing. Surface level science, we're not talking about surface level science here, she's talking about surface level science. Actual evolutionary biology is not surface level. Like I said, in my office at the University of Reading, there's a museum on the ground floor and we've got loads of ancient fossils there. To presume that the kind of research that's going on at the University of Reading, other places is surface level science, just imagination. Speaker 1 (13:56.66) is so offensive to real science. It's so disrespectful. And she says, the more I study science, it fills me with wonder. You have no respect for science at all. Zero respect for science, for scientists, for research, for peer review. You know, we don't just publish whatever pops into our brains. It has to be tested. It needs data. gets analyzed. It gets scrutinized. It gets peer reviewed. It takes a long time to get a science paper published. You have to be super rigorous. Evolutionary biology modern genetics are rigorous more rigorous than they've ever been Just these people have absolutely no love or respect for our discipline She says a solid case can be made solely on science and maths against evolution biology That's some intelligent design nonsense right there creation isn't a less scientific view. It's more scientific Explain that one to me. How is creationism which produces no research? No publications, no hard science, no peer review, no new technology, no new medicine, no new applications. Explain to me and all of us how Young Earth creationism or creationism of any kind is a more scientific view than people who actually do modern paleobiology, evolutionary biology, evolutionary genetics or anything like that. The genetics I'm involved with has direct correlations to cancer research, cancer treatment. Is your creationism more rigorous, more scientific than that? No, of course not. And she finishes by saying, the more I study science, the more sure I am. You are an ideologue. You are an ideologue. to that evolutionary biology is like a religion and a worldview coming from people like these. Shame on you, Genesis apologetics, for putting out stuff like this to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. I would encourage people to get out of this kind of ideological capture. Speaker 1 (16:07.254) One of my favorite, favorite people in all of literature is Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes says, data, data, data, Watson, I can't make bricks without clay. You can't make bricks without clay. You need data. You need actual hard scientific data. Evolutionary biology has a lot of that and more so now than ever because of the paradigm shift in genetics, the revolution in genetics of the last 25 years since the Human Genome Project. dear, I don't want to do any more of these. That was infuriating. But I hope you enjoyed it. Maybe it was fun to watch. dear. I'll start reacting to some other stuff instead. Thanks for joining me. Enjoy the interviews and the next episode on Wednesday. Thank you.