A Matter of Faith Review
This film was originally released in 2014, so why am I writing about this now? Truth is I wanted to make a review of it a long time ago, but missed the opportunity to see it in theater. So I had to wait to see in on DVD, but it was never made clear when it would be released. Over the years, I just forgot about it, until I saw it was available on Netflix. It already was rated 1 star (rightfully so), thus making it seem less useful for me to review it since everyone already appears to know how bad it is. But still, I wanted to make a review of this film a while back, and I like to finish things, so here it goes.
I’m not going to review the whole movie scene by scene or comment on the quality of the movie, rather I just want to focus on the creationist arguments, scenes of misrepresenting evolution and science, and a few scenes that just stick out that I just have to comment on.
The gist of the movie is Christian dad named Stephen has a daughter named Rachel who goes to college and learns about evolution in a biology class (well what did you expect? That’s like learning about gravity in a physics class). Within the first week of college, Rachel finally reveals she wants to major in biology and become a pharmacist. Daddy wanted to send her to a Christian university, but instead she goes to a university with a “great program.” When Stephen learns that her little girl is being taught evolution, he wants the school to teach both evolution and creationism. When he cannot get that done, he decides to debate the school biologist professor Marcus Kaman and push for creationism. On top of that, Rachel meets several classmates, some are pro-creationism others are not. Like I said, I am not going to delve so much into the plot of the movie, because it is simplistic anyone reading this can already get the full picture of this film just by reading this paragraph.
I will first start with the key scenes before the “Big Debate” and add my comments to them. When addressing the Debate, virtually every single word spoken by the creationist side makes me want to vomit. It’s one lie after the other, which is going to make this a bit of work.
BEFORE THE DEBATE
Now, the first day of biology class, Prof. Kaman is a cheerful guy and does not come across as having an agenda (creationists often feed on conspiracies that college professors are “out to get you” and destroy your faith). Not getting that vibe at all here. All Kaman did is announce they will be looking into the biology of life and how it started (well duh, it’s a Intro of Bio class) and all he expects from his students is their participation and critical thinking. He remarks that learning is what science is all about and it is what makes humanity grow into something better.
Next class, Kaman starts the class by addressing the question that humans have asked for centuries: how did life originate… and he asks this by pulling out a rubber chicken and a egg, and asks “which came first? The chicken or the egg?” When he asks his students this, he reveals the answer is the egg (Rachel picked the chicken, and expresses disappointment).
Instead of going into that fish and lizards lay eggs for millions of years before the first avians evolved from dinosaurs (so clearly the egg came first), rather Kaman uses the egg and chicken to make the point that “simple life forms evolve into complex life forms.” Well, he is not wrong and he did squeeze in a mention of the “fossil record,” but I think a golden opportunity to make a note that fish and lizards laid eggs before birds ever existed.
After class, Rachel talks to her roommate Ally about Kaman’s lesson. Rachel asks Ally if she thinks Kaman was right about the egg coming first, and Rachel notes, “my dad would probably disagree with that.”
This is why I think Kaman should have mentioned the fact that fish and lizards (who existed long before chickens did) lay eggs to settle the case…. but even still, if Rachel is more worried with what Daddy thinks then learning and accepting what the simple facts are, then we have a glimpse into how parenting has control over her independence. When I was in college, no matter which subject I took, the thought of “would my parents agree or not with X topic” never came to my mind, because I can think for myself. That being said, she did not say or indicate that she completely disregarded Kaman’s lesson altogether, she only noted that her dad would think otherwise about the lesson. If I was back in college and a classmate said this to me, I’d tell her, “look Rachel, people go to college to learn new things. If we are only taught what our parents teach us, we become limited.”
Later on in the movie, when Rachel goes back to visit home, share her experience with her parents, daddy Stephen researches Marcus Kaman. He then goes to his pastor, is shocked that he is a “evolutionist” who has written many articles on that. He is also pissed that colleges do not teach biblical creation “as a plausible alternative.” His pastor is not surprised, and shares that all public colleges teach evolution “as the answer to the origins of life.”
Right there, anyone with elementary understanding of evolution would respond, “wrong, evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it originated.”
Stephen is surprised that all schools teach evolution and not creation, and his pastor says “the attack on Genesis is a real battleground.” Stephen does not like the idea of his daughter sitting in class with Kaman, so he decides to talk to Kaman first instead of his daughter.
Really! If this guy is so concerned with your daughter, who should be the first person to talk to?
On top of that, what world do these filmmakers live in? Why is Stephen seem so surprised that universities teach evolution? It’s like their whole world only existed within the walls of their homes and churches, but as soon as one of the flock leaves the nest into the rest of the world, suddenly they are taken aback of what kids learn these days. It’s like these people are pretending to be the modern Amish.
Also, when the pastor says that “the attack of Genesis is real,” so was the Genesis interpretation that the Earth was flat and in the center of the universe.
Back in class, Kaman is addressing the track runner in the class. He circles in on how fast his student has run, even though he is not the fastest on his team, but if he had competed in previous Olympic runs in 1864 and 1904, the student would have won gold medals. Kaman says this goes to show that humans are evolving to be faster and smarter. Based on Rachel’s face, she does not like to hear the word “evolve.”
Honestly girl, you are in a biology class learning the facts of life, and it is your major, at least look cheerful.
When Stephen visits Kaman in his office, the two start with Stephen expressing concern about Kaman teaching only evolution. Kaman asks Stephen if he is a religious man. Stephen says yes. Kaman asks if that brings him peace. Stephen says yes. Then Kaman encourages Stephen to keep on believing.
Wow, look at that, Kaman takes the high road. He is not concerned about changing beliefs or telling people what to believe, he is only doing what teachers are meant to be doing: teaching the facts. Bravo.
But even after Kaman tells Stephen to continue to believe in something that brings him peace, Stephen rebounds with (in a shocking tone) “but you’re teaching evolution.” Kaman says he teaches what his textbooks say, done by real scientists and have examined the evidence, and that makes Kaman at peace. Stephen retorts, “but it goes against our core beliefs of everything we’ve been teaching Rachel all her life, against what Christianity stands for.”
What. The. Actual. Fuck?!
Evolution goes against the core beliefs of Christians? The early pioneers of evolutionary science were all initially Christian (including Darwin) and many leading proponents of modern evolutionary science are still Christian today. For example, microbiologist Dr. Ken Miller, (who testified against intelligent design creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover) -is a Catholic. Another outspoken proponent of evolution, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and Yale) is not only one of the leading, and most recognizable paleontologists in the world today, but he also happens to be a Bible-believing Pentecostal preacher; though he interprets Genesis differently than literalists would. In his book, Bones, Bibles and Creation, he says that to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning. One of the earliest geneticists, Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian who many times professed his belief that life was created by God, but has stated “nothing in biology made sense except in light of evolution.” Other notable respected Christian scientists who accept evolution include: Rev. Keith Miller, Ph.D. (founder of Stand Firm Ministries); Dennis O. Lamoureux; David N. Livingstone Ph.D.; Prof. Richard Colling; Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project; Howard J. Van Till; Dr. Larry Arnhart; Prof. David E. Wilcox; Dr. Graeme Finley; Prof. Donald Neil (author of “God Created the Heavens and the Earth”); Dr. Dennis Edwards (author of “The God of Evolution”); Prof. Rev. John Polkinghorne Ph.D.; Prof. Stanley L Jaki Ph.D. (who is also a Benedictine priest); and much more. All these men agree that even if there really is a god, and even if that god is the Christian god, and even if that god created the universe and everything in it, -which they all believe- evolution would still be at least mostly true, and creationism would still be completely wrong.Evolution does not lead to abandoning Christianity or leading to atheism, so teaching evolution to students is not and never was an attack on Christianity. Creationism is a fundamentalist branch of Christianity, but so is Flat-Eartherism and Geocentrism, and they are all wrong and colleges teach the facts — thus they should be applauded for doing their job, not demonized for teaching students the evidence.
When Rachel comes in, Kaman wraps up the talk but offers Stephen to join him in a college debate. Kaman says they will debate evolution against creationism, and it would be valuable to the students. Rachel is against he idea, and Stephen says “Now wait a minute Professor Kaman. I didn’t come here with any intention of doing a debate with you.”
OH REALLY!!!!! Yet you have the gal to come to the university, come into his office, and tell him how to teach and what not to teach!
And while thus far in the movie, this is the first time I am viewing Kaman in a negative way. While I am a huge proponent of thoughtful discussions and critical thought, what Kaman did here should have just sat down with Stephen and talked to him about his field of study, and helped Stephen understand the science behind evolution. Challenging Stephen to a debate is way too overboard. For one thing, there is no “debate” – evolution is a scientific fact and creationism is a myth. Period. When Kaman challenged Stephen to a debate, the only thing that will come out of that is Kaman making Stephen look bad with nothing to support his views (which is exactly what happened).
In the real world, any self-respecting professor who is approached by a concerned parent deals with the issue civilly and in private. Take Peter Boghossian, a American philosophy professor at Portland State University. In his book, A Manuel for Creating Atheists, in Chapter 8 he shares a story where a parent comes to his office and daddy is pissed that Boghossian is making his son question his faith (his son is taking a Critical Thinking class, what did you expect!?). So Peter and the father sit down and have a little chat. The Dad did not want Peter to teach whatever it is that made his son question his faith, he said “teaching anything but that.” But by the end of the conversation, Peter Boghossian convinced the father that what Peter was doing was necessary. In the middle of the chat, Peter even got the father to get out his phone and call his pastor and left the pastor questions on voicemail. So Peter asked the father if it is okay to ask his Pastor questions, why should it be not-okay for him or his son to ask questions in class? They ended their conversation with a handshake and a understanding. If Kaman did the same here, this whole thing could have been avoided, and Rachel would not have to feel awkward.
Later, when Rachel is upset that her dad agrees to debate him, Stephen says that “[he] was put on the spot” and felt compelled to say yes. He then tells Rachel that Kaman “has no respect for God or anything we believe in.”
This guy didn’t even spend 2 minutes with Kaman, and already he is accusing Kaman of having “no respect for God.” For the sake of the argument, if there was a God, the ones who would be disrespecting him would be creationists. We live in a universe where all the evidence points to a very very very old universe, yet creationists claim this universe is only 6,000 years old and everything merely “appears” to look billions of years old…. basically, they are calling the Creator a big fat “deceiver.” That God intentionally made the universe seem old, while telling us it is young. It’s the same as building a whole city that took decades to complete, and saying it was all done in 5 minutes (which would be a lie). This is why millions of Christians (like Ken Miller and all the theistic scientists mentioned earlier) adopt theistic evolution. If you are going to believe in a god, at least make it an honest god.
Then he says he is not concerned with changing Kaman’s mind, he is doing this because daddy thinks the professor is affecting his little daughter and changing her beliefs.
See the problem with these fundamentalists: it is far more important that you believe it rather then if it is true. If he or any respectable parent wanted their child to learn facts and discover the truth, they would welcome new information. But only fundamentalists want to have fixed beliefs and have authority over their children.
And for those readers who are thinking that is a big claim, ready to have your mind blown? Take a look what the Texas GOP Platform in 2012 said about higher critical thinking courses.
“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
And let’s not forget the funny part: a point made a while ago (and will be repeated later in the film) was that creationists like Stephen want schools to teach “alternatives” alongside evolution. That is what critical thinking is about, and yet Stephen is worried that his daughter is being exposed to “alternatives” to the beliefs he has taught her her whole life. People go to colleges to learn new things, inevitably they will be exposed to different views and new facts. If Stephen was worried about his daughter, then he can do what he appears to do elsewhere in this film and just take his little girl to church — there, now she’s exposed to both sides (granted they would be lying to her whenever they tell her creationism is true or has any merit).
Oh, and one more thing! Later on in the film, Rachel “reconnects” with God and becomes a die-hard believer… and yet Stephen does not cancel the debate, when the whole point what Daddy being so concerned about professors affecting his precious daughter. Well, obviously they are not, she is still a big Jesus-fan, Kaman did not turn her away from God, so continuing the debate would be pointless. At this point, the only reason why both sides still continue to do this thing is because both of them want to, they just want to put on a show and go at each other on stage.
Later on, Stephen asks Rachel over the phone, “what does he teach you in that class? Does he think the universe began with some Big Bang or something?”
A college professor is teaching students the facts of modern cosmology…. how dare he!?
When Kaman announces to his class that he is going to have a debate with Rachel’s dad, he does not shoot her or her father or her beliefs down. He shows empathy and says he understands that she may feel uncomfortable and embarrassed right now, but Kaman gives her his complete support.
Kaman is not a bad guy. I’m actually a bit surprised how the filmmakers portray Kaman, because often times Christian movies with targeted audiences to motivate young people and students to “stand up for their faith” often portray scientists and non-Christians as vile and harsh people. Don’t believe me, read my blog review of God’s Not Dead.
When Stephen examines a textbook he picked up from the high school library, he reads it to his wife. He reads, “Humans came from ape-like ancestors. There is nothing supernatural about the origins of human beings.” To which the mom says, “how can they get away with something like that?”
How can they get away with something like that? …. because IT’S TRUE. Seriously, at what point has anyone proven that there ever has been a supernatural interference in the origin of humans? Huh? It’s a science textbook, if there was any scientific proof that a “supernatural interference” happened, it would be included. This lady is so unbelievable, it’s like a person being shocked that history books do not mention Atlantis being a real city…. well yeah, that’s because there is no historical evidence of such a place. (If these guys had any proof of this supposed supernatural making of humans, why not share it anywhere in this film? Because no such proof exists).
A university journalist named Evan, a Christian creationist, meets Stephen and wants to help him. He offers to give him books and articles that use science to prove creation (I call BS), and says that 12 years ago Kaman got a professor named Portland fired. Why? Because Portland was “teaching creation” instead of evolution. Later on, Stephen meets Portland and they discuss what happened 12 years ago and why Portland did not want to teach evolution. Best we get from Portland is that he said he did not want to teach “evolutionary lies” to students, but does not go into any detail. Portland then does not want anything to do with Stephen, Kaman, or the debate. They part ways.
They make Evan the star goody-goody Christian in this whole movie. The student who is strong in his faith and has no fear of sharing it or standing up to professors about it. He is also the guy who does not lie, and does not try to get girls like the other college boys. Granted he is the “ideal college creationist” the film makers and script writers dreamed up. But just like real college creationists, Evan is an arrogant religious nutcase who parades themselves as more knowledgeable then “the lying” professors. I met real college creationists during my years in college and in a university. They are all young who likely come from very religious backgrounds, and walk into schools with preconceived notions that their beliefs are the truth with a capitol T, so they have their mental walls way up before they enter a college class. At best, all they have done is read one book or two (in my experience, usually on Intelligent Design) or watched a few creation seminars, and they think they know it all. Sometimes they will challenge professors in class or on online class forums. But they are not hopeless, and plenty of them do learn. If you have the time, I recommend watching this video of one testimony.
Rachel again tries to get her dad to cancel the debate, but she learns that Evan was talking to her father, so she confronts Evan. Evan stands his ground and is glad this debate is happening. He says that Kaman is not a intelligent man, he is just a gifted communicator who appears to have good points and Evan tells Rachel that she is letting Kaman “play with her mind.”
Ultimate projection happening here. Seriously, ever seen Kent Hovind speak?
Evan mentions the “chicken and the egg” argument Kaman makes in class, and says that does not happen because “Life comes from life. It doesn’t come from non-life. God created the chicken first, just like the Bible says, and then set it up so that life could reproduce itself.”
I’m leaving marks of my face on my desk right now. This is so stupid. This is why I wanted there to be some mention that fish and lizards lay eggs, and both predate chickens. Therefore, Evan is wrong, the chicken did not come first.
Life doesn’t come from non-life? Tell me, are eggs and sperm “alive”? Or are they lifeless pieces of biochemical goo, until you mix them together and after a period of time it develops into a living organism? And if you don’t think that simple organisms can become more complex organisms, guess what buddy… YOU did it in 9 months!
Later on, Rachel is in the library. A nameless fellow classmate walks up and talks to her about the debate. She says that she never wanted it to happen. When the classmate says he thought Kaman’s lesson about humans evolving from apes was great and Kaman may embarrass her father during the debate, Evan pops up and says “does your mom look like an ape? Does your grandmother look like an ape.” When the student asks what Evan’s problem is, Evan responds, “Kaman says we all come from apes, so which one of your family was the monkey?” He then asks who is embarrassed now?
Who in your family was the ape? Here is the answer: ALL OF THEM, EVEN YOU.
We are all apes, by definition. You, your parents, your family, your friends, and even your children if you have any.
↓↓↓↓↓↓ EVEN THIS GUY IS AN APE!!! ↓↓↓↓↓↓
For all the reasons why a lion is a cat, and a duck is a bird, and a iguana is a lizard… humans are apes, biologically and by definition. So every time you see a human, you see a bipedal primate.
There is absolutely no shame in being an ape. Should a lion be ashamed it’s a cat? We are apes, that’s the truth, like it or not. Lions are cats, and as we know not all cats are the same. Likewise, not all apes are the same. Humans are great apes, we are the species of animals with the most marvelous brains the world has ever known, and that is something to be proud of, not be shamed of. Calling people “apes” is no more shameful then pointing out that fact that humans are mammals.
Evan says “You can take it all the way back to the very first man and woman: Adam and Eve. And guess what? No one was ever an ape. You know why? Because apes come from apes and humans come from humans.”
That is as idiotic as saying “birds come from birds, and owls come from owls.” They are the same thing! Second of all, there never was an Adam and Eve.
Evan says “[Kaman] teaches evolution lies to get students to doubt their faith in God and the Bible.” Evan then says that some Christians stand up for their faith, while others don’t. He says that is perhaps because some people come to Jesus through admission instead of submission: they just added Jesus into their lives, but not submitting to him.
Oh bother. If evolution was to get students to “doubt” their faith in the Bible and God, then explain the reason why millions of Christians today accept evolution and are still believers?
These guys are not worried about evolution demolishing their beliefs in Christianity, they are worried about evolution demolishing their beliefs in CREATIONISM. Like I said earlier, creationism is a fundamentalist branch of Christianity, just like Flat-Earthers and Geocentrists are also fundamentalist branches of Christianity (there are tens of thousands of denominations within Christianity). These fundamentalists nitpick and interpret the Bible in such a ways they believe that the book claims the Earth is very young (they do this to also believe the Earth does not move and is the center of the universe). All of this comes directly from interpreting a ancient book, and forcing that interpretation to become their reality like wishful thinking — it is literally “make believe.” That’s why they fear science, because it forces us to ask questions, to examine the evidence, test it and try to falsify it, then build models around it — faith is the exact opposite, where you start with a conclusion and force the evidence to fit that conclusion, or block out that evidence altogether.
And I am not kidding about “blocking out” evidence altogether. Just look at these statements of faith openly posted on popular creationist website (emphasis mine):
“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” –Answersingenesis.org
“verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.” –Institute for Creation Research
“[this school]…stresses the Word of God as the ONLY source of truth in our world.” –Canyon Creek Christian Academy, Richardson TX.
“We believe that the autographs of the 66 canonical books of the Bible are objectively inspired, infallible and the inerrant Word of God in all of their parts and in all matters of which they speak (history, theology, science, etc.).” –Mark Cadwallader’s “Creation Moments.org”
“The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error–scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God’s world must always agree with God’s Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict.” –Mark Ramsey’s “Greater Houston Creation Association.”
“Revealed Truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof.
…Fallacy: that which contradicts God’s revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem.” –Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text (3rd ed. – 2 vol.)
“Any so-called “truth” in conflict with God’s Truth is no truth at all; it is a lie, a manifestation of the one great Lie that tells us the God of the Bible is not the one God and King over all. The war between the Truth and “truths” is really the war between Truth and the Lie.” –Campus Crusade for Christ blog by Tom Gilson http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/17783
Every creationist group and organization post declarations of this kind: admissions of bias. Proudly posted as if this is something to be proud of. Notice that they all admit that they will automatically and thoughtlessly reject without consideration, any and all evidence that which may be presented should it appear to disagree with their priory preconceived conclusion. (The last one was posted on the group’s blog rather than on their website)
DEBATE: Evolution vs. Creationism
*Reminder: I wrote down line by line all the arguments made by the creationist side, and I have a response to every single one of them. But I want to remind my readers that I am going in order on what was said.
Stephen opening statements. Stephen says that he is amazed that evolution is taught all around America because “evolution is not scientific in the truest sense of the word since science deals with what can be observed and reproduced through experimentation. Scientific claims must be accepted only after they have been verified.”
This is one of the most common (and dumbest) misconceptions creationists make about science. They will repeat over and over that “science is all about observation” and if you never seen it happen, then it never happened. This. Is. Wrong.
In science, we do not have to directly observe things to validate their existence. Have you ever seen your great-great-great-grandparents mate? No? Then how do you know you have great-great-great-grandparents? See the problem? I hope so. You do not have to observe your great-great-great-grandparents, you can find out they existed, and likely where they come from, thanks to genetics.
Let me spell it out another way. The photon of the atom is so small, no one has ever seen one. But we don’t have to. Scientists were able to verify the existence of the photon with a simple experiment of gold and gamma rays. Also, the orbit of Pluto takes 280 years to make it around the sun, and Pluto was only discovered less then 100 years from now. That means nobody has ever observed a full orbit of Pluto. But we do not have to. Using our models of planetary orbital mechanics and physics, we can calculate how long a full orbit of Pluto will take.
Likewise, we do not need to directly observe whales evolving from land animals. That is already well documented in the fossil record, where we can see step by step animals changing and adapting, becoming different animals as long stretches of time pass.
“The origin of life can neither be observed nor reproduced in any laboratory, even though they try to show us this with their illustrations in the textbooks I studied.”
First of all, the theory of evolution never was about explaining how life originated, only on how it diversified. This is another common (and dumb) misconception of evolution creationists shamelessly spread. Evolution at every level is -by definition- limited to the variation of allele frequencies inherited over generations of living organisms, so it obviously can’t operate where no genomes yet exist. The evolutionary process starts with genetics and can’t start before it. So how the first genes came about may seem similar to evolution, and may even involve a form of natural selection in some way, but it is in fact a very different chemical process called ‘abiogenesis’.
Second, I should point out Cell Theory. Cell Theory states that all living organisms are made of cells, and this also a theory like evolution. But you never hear creationists criticize Cell Theory for not explaining how cells were first created, nor do you hear creationists demand colleges and schools not teach Cell Theory. Why is that? Why is only evolution on the creationist hate list?
Finally, those “illustrations” are not just illustrations. If I showed you the blueprints of a car, who in their right mind would say “those are just illustrations.” Cars are far more then illustrations, they actually work and we use them. Likewise, the experiments show in textbooks that shed light on how life may have originated are not just “illustrations,” they are actual experiments that produced real and tangible results. Real proof.
“By definition then, true naturalistic science can furnish no knowledge about where any life form, including the human race, came from or how it got here.”
Wrong on so many levels.
He’s wrong that naturalistic science can furnish knowledge about all of those things. Science is the best method used by man that have discovered real answers about the universe. Imagine if someone said “science cannot furnish any knowledge about how lightning is made, so let’s all believe in Zeus, the Thunder God.”
The truth is science has made huge progress into answering many questions, such as where do humans come from and how we got here. We know humans come from a common ancestor with other apes (and as I mentioned earlier in this blog, WE are apes too).
“If God did not create the universe, than who or what did?”
Who says this universe was “created”? You make it sound like the universe is the result of craftsmanship of some kind.
“A big bang that produced a cosmic explosion? What caused it to go bang? A chemical reaction? What organized the original chemicals or molecules or gases or whatever evolutionists say happened to form life here on earth? And how did it create so much detail and beauty and design and intelligence?”
If this guy spent a little bit more time reading that high school textbook he was reading earlier, he may have found the answers to these questions.
Also, the argument from design is another typical creationist argument that has no leg to stand on.
“Nothing times something does not equal everything and yet, as I see it, that is the true definition of an evolutionary view of the universe and what millions and millions of people are placing their trust in, as to how life on this earth began.”
Once again: the theory of evolution does not, and never has, attempted to explain the origin of the universe. Evolution only explains how life diversified. It’s all about biology, nothing to do with cosmology.
Also, if “nothing times something does not equal everything,” then by that logic, Stephen’s God could not have created the universe from nothing…. thus Stephen just refuted his own platform of creationism.
“The evolutionary worldview is clearly as much a religion as any theistic worldview.”
This is such a blatant falsehood creationists spew like some mantra, but no matter how many times they repeat it, it will not make it true because it was never true to begin with.
Evolution is not a religion anymore then Cell Theory of the theory of gravity are religions. This is also a settle issue in court, and not just one court, multiple courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982)
“Now only is the teaching of evolution an attack against those well-known first words of the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,” but it is an undermining assault against the authority of God, which really becomes the main issue here.”
This dead horse is taking a beating…. as I must repeat myself: the theory of evolution does not, and never has, attempted to explain the origin of the universe. Evolution only explains how life diversified. It’s all about biology, nothing to do with cosmology. And as I said earlier, evolution does not kick in until alleles and genes first exist, so there is no way the theory of evolution can address anything “in the beginning” where alleles and genes do not exist yet.
So evolution has no issue with the first line of the Bible….. but that does not take away from the overbearing problem with that line: that there is no evidence that the line is true to begin with.
As modern cosmology alone has already explained how the universe could have originated with a Creator (and indeed the universe appears exactly as we would expect if there was no Creator), the flaw with creationism is it’s own severe lack of evidence as well as the over whelming volumes of evidence weighing against creationism.
And it does not stop with just the first line of the Bible, but throughout the whole thing. Not only does it have zero evidence to substantiate the claim that God created the universe in the beginning, but the bible has it dead wrong on how the universe started. Stephen drew our attention to the first line of Genesis, making us to ignore the very next verse that destroys his entire argument in such a colossal embarrassing way. Genesis verse two says the Earth was without form and void, and “God separated the waters from the firmament.” I can go on and make a accurate case that the Genesis authors believed the sky to be just a dome, but I’d like to address the second elephant in the room: the water. The Hebrew word used in this verse is “מָ֫יִם – mayim” which means “water,” the same literal word used for the seas later mentioned in the same chapter in Genesis. Mayim is literal word for seas, oceans, floods, streams, rivers, and rain. It’s the word used that quenches thirst and bathes our bodies. So we are definitely addressing literal a body of water, H2O, existing before everything else that was created according to Genesis. For those who say this passage is symbolic or metaphorical, despite it using literal words, allow me to point out that there is no indication or any criteria that any of this is being symbolic or metaphorical. But if we are going to argue that this phrase is metaphorical for no reason, why stop there? To be consistent we would have to argue that everything else in Genesis is being metaphorical, including the part of there being a supreme God and the story of creation as a whole.
But that not being the case, and that we are dealing with a literal word to represent water, let’s get to the meat of the argument. Now listen carefully as I explain why this piece is significant and fatal to Joshua’s position, because I will simultaneously argue why the origin of the universe does not require a God to explain it as well as demolish his first argument.
To begin with, all of the matter in the universe is a condensed form of energy. We know this from mass energy equivalence (E = mc²), and we have been able to convert one to the other with two nuclear forces by the manipulation of qluons, W+ and W-, and Z bosons. All matter comes from energy, and energy in accordance to the law of thermodynamics, is eternal. These are also naturally occurring processes, the rule of these processes and the Big Bang Theory is by following inflationary epoch, approx. 10 to the minus four seconds after the Big Bang.
The expansion of the universe causes temperature to fall, to the threshold temperature of protons and quarks, the fundamental constituents of matter, is reached. Further expansion causes the temperature to drop further, allowing protons and neutrons to form, and there are your first Hydrogen atoms.
The first hydrogen atoms get attracted to each other under the force of gravity to form structures of extreme density and heat, eventually resulting in quantum tunneling and allows fusion to take place. This is how the first stars form, and fusion being the process that keeps stars burning by converting Hydrogen into other atoms.
This fusion that powers the stars allow heavier elements to form for the first time, such as Helium, Neon, Carbon, Oxygen, Iron, and so on. But when stars run out of fuel, they die and explode, this is called a supernova. These dying stars release all the heavy atoms within them across the universe. This is where for the first time that Hydrogen atoms can bond with Oxygen and form the first water molecules.
But according to Genesis, water existed first before God created light and stars. But thanks to science and cosmology, we know this to be outright impossible. Turns out Genesis, got it wrong 2,500 years ago and still has it wrong today.
“At least when we’re starting with God as the first cause, it seems that everything else that happens to make sense.”
Wrong. Making God the “first cause” does nothing to answer anything, nor does it make everything else make sense. In fact, it may make it worse.
Kaman begins by taking a problem with the last line where God created the universe. Kaman says that Stephen can’t prove it, that it all rests on faith. Kaman says faith is just “wishful thinking.” Unlike religious faith, Kaman says that science can produce answers and evidence, that is can and has proven that life can come from non-living chemicals and intelligence wasn’t required to get it done. Kaman notes that everyone here is descendant of a common ancestor, and we see that happen in the fossil record. He says right to Stephen, “that is proof Mister Whitaker. That is scientific proof.” Evolution means we are all distant cousins, and the strata documents that change of simpler life forms to more complex life forms is clearly visible. Radiometric dating shows the Earth is billions of years old, and that is a lot of time for evolution.
I have to hand it to Kaman, because so far, he is the only one that is actually presenting evidence.
Stephen asks Kaman how he explains away God. Kaman says he sides with Sigmund Freud, that man created god.
Stephen then asks what is the purpose of life? Kaman says we live, we die, and we return to the earth. There is no afterlife. Elvis dead and has left the building.
Stephen says he does not believe that, to which Kaman emphasizes “yeah, you believe, but do you have any proof of an afterlife?”
Kaman pushes for scientific proof.
Stephen says “The Bible says we believe by faith.”
Kaman says, “faith in what? A God we cannot see and a book we can’t rely on? I’d like a little scientific proof.”
Stephen responds, “I cannot offer scientific proof.”
Kaman asks how does Stephen know the words in the Bible are true?
Stephen answers, “The Bible is very trustworthy.”
Kaman says he wasn’t looking for trustworthy, he asked if it was true.
Stephen says “the Bible is the word of God.”
Kaman points out wasn’t the Bible written by men?
Stephen says yes.
Kaman asks “then how does that make it the word of God?”
Stephen answers, “Look, I cannot explain it.”
Kaman says “you are betting your afterlife on a book you can’t explain about a God you can’t prove.”
This is the most realistic exchange in perhaps the entire movie, and to it’s credit it mirrors exactly how most evolution v. creationism debates end up at.
Kaman says he is sticking with Freud, but at that moment, from the audience, Portland declares “Freud was wrong.” When the moderator tells Portland there will be a time for questions from the audience, Stephen says he is a friend and wants him to speak.
Portland walks up onto the stage, and Stephen allows Portland to take over the debate from now on.
“ Portland says Kaman sides with Freud “since evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator.”
Do I need to repeat the list of scientists I provided earlier who are Christian to this day and still accept the theory of evolution? Even the late Pope John Paul II accepted evolution and called it “more then a mere hypothesis.”
“And since there is no God, then there are no rules, and no one to whom we must give account.”
That is not proof for a god, that is a plea for a god.
That is like saying “if there is no slave master, then there are no rules for us to follow, no one for us to serve.” That is not proof there is a slave master, that is a plea to bring a slave master into existence without proving the slave master is real to begin with.
If morality means anything, it means that we are accountable to others. Christians believe that we are accountable not to people, but to God. Since God is nonexistent, then Christians are accountable to no one. Even if a god does exist, they are in practice not directly accountable to anyone in the real world, which amounts to the same thing. Since Bible believers are accountable to God and not to humanity, they can ask for forgiveness from God for any crimes they commit against humanity. In other words, they can act with impunity. And they often do.
It is perfectly possible to be good without any god or gods. Secular philosophies and ethics around the world can provide guidelines on how to live a moral life. At root, morality can be obtained through empathy and experience (how our actions affect others) — which are human sources independent of religion that can help us determine how to be a good person — reason, and accurate and relevant information. Sound reasoning won’t lead to valid assessments if we are operating under flawed information, nor with sound information if our reasoning is flawed. Without sound reasoning and information, we can’t determine how the universe works, how different life forms suffer or flourish, where responsibility lies, or the short- and long-term consequences of actions on an inter-personal or global scale. These are considerations on which moral judgments depends.
“But man didn’t create God. Freud got that wrong. In fact, I would propose to you the very opposite. I believe that if man had his way, he would rather God did not exist and eliminate God. Haven’t you noticed, that whenever anything goes bad in someone’s life or there is some tragic event that occurs, people, religious and non-religious, almost inevitably blame God. How could God allow this, how could God allow that? No, if man had his way he would rather eliminate God, not create him. He even comes up with theology that says, “God is dead and has left the building.””
As I was listening to this, a whole slide show of different gods from various cultures from all around the world going back centuries kept running through my mind.
Man would rather eliminate God? Really? Then why did the Egyptians believe in gods with the heads of animals? Why did the Greeks believe in gods that look like humans living on top of a mountain? Why would the people of India make up literally millions of gods, some with heads of animals, others humans with multiple limbs? Even on isolated island cultures, humans made up gods. Seriously, read a damn book!
Anybody with the slightest iota of knowledge of world history would not make such a dumb claim that humans would rather eliminate god then create god(s). Obviously, humans all over the world created all kinds of gods. Why would they do that? Because they didn’t know how the world worked and they needed answers to explain everything, so they made gods for the rivers, gods for the seasons, gods for thunder, gods for life, gods for death, and so on. Then it got much simpler when you attribute every single thing to only one god.
As for me, I’m 100% on the side that man created God. If you are on the fence, I highly recommend reading this book:
Portland then introduces himself, shares that he used to teach biology class, “only that I taught from the perspective that God is our Creator and I refused to teach what I felt where evolutionary lies from the textbooks. When Professor Kaman joined our staff, he got me fired over this very issue. I despise you Kaman. I blamed you for ruining my career.”
Teachers are free to believe in any god or no god, whatever they like. Their main duty is to teach students. And once this man admitted he refused to teach those kids the subject he was hired for and paid to teach, he forfeited his duty of being a teacher. Rather, it sounds like he gave up his teaching career and wanted to pioneer as a preacher.
If I was in Kaman shoes, I would make the same call that got Portland fired. And I would do it again, and again, and again. I would to it to Portland, or any professor caught teaching voodoo in a medical class, flying carpets in a engineering class, astrology in a astronomy class, phrenology in a neurology class, and so on. In science classes, we teach science, we teach the facts. We would be doing our students a great disservice if we teach them anything but the facts.
Portland notes, “You’re talking about those laboratory experiments have proven that living organisms evolved from non-living chemicals, as proof of a naturalistic origin of life. This is just not so. Those experiments only showed that certain organic compounds could be formed from inorganic compounds, and intelligence was, and is, still needed, since someone had to conduct and design those experiments. Certainly that’s far from creating life in the laboratory.”
Was the discovery of “organic compounds” on meteorites made in a laboratory? No. Nice try buddy, but “intelligence” is not needed to form organic compounds from inorganic chemicals.
Abiogenesis outlines possible physical mechanisms for the production of the first self-replicating polymers, their assembly and sequestration within membrane bound compartments and the development of the chemical interfaces between different biopolymeric systems.
“And you know that the amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell, shows that it could not have evolved from non-living chemicals and that it must have been created.”
65% of the “information” in the cell is “junk DNA” with 26% more considered to be junk as well (so about 90% of DNA is junk). This is another indicator that the cell indeed evolved.
“You know the fossil record does not show the continuous development of one kind of creature into another and that no one has ever seen one kind of plant or animal changing into another of different kind.”
The Liar-Liar Meter is about to burst wide open after continuously being in the red zone throughout this whole talk.
It’s like opposite world in the creationists mind. The fossil does exactly what they say it doesn’t.
“Dogs change into different kinds of dogs, but they are always dogs. And we can breed dogs to form new varieties, but they never turn into cats or kangaroos because they remain in the boundaries that God created for them in the beginning.”
If it is possible to walk twenty feet, it’s possible to walk twenty miles. So creationists insist there must be some “definite boundary” blocking the evolution of new “kinds”. But they won’t say where or what that boundary is. Creationists habitually misdefine their terms –if they can be forced to use definitions at all, because they will not be accountable. They can’t be, because they’ve decided in advance never to change their minds even if they’re proven wrong. If they were to find out that macroevolution was ever actually seen and proven to have happened for certain, their cultish faith would still forbid them to admit it. Instead they’d have to redefine their terms, to “move the goalposts” to some higher taxonomic level –but not so high as to have to admit where humans belong in the families of apes.
“And you know that there are layers of assumptions used to calculate the age of the earth using radiometric dating, so why are you misleading our audience? The earth is not billions of years old. The earth is not millions of years old, not even close.”
Such a despicable and odious lie.
Using radiometric dating does not rely on “assumptions.” They are “constants.” Calling them assumptions is like saying objects falling at 9.8 m/s is an “assumption.” The truth is, radiometric dating is based on the constant radiometric decay rates, and these dating methods are consistent and very accurate.
Using the constant radiometric decay rates, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is definitely old and not young. In SI units, we measure radioactivity in Becquerels (Bq), named after the guy who discovered radioactivity. One Bq is equal to one release of radioactive nucleon per second.
According to the Physics Department of the University of Idaho, the kilogram of Uranium 238 releases on average 25 B1. And the fifth edition of the McGraw Hills Science and Technology Encyclopedia calculates that the Earth’s crust contains ~1.0001 x 10^17 kgs of Uranium 238. That means that the total amount of radioactive nucleotide output on Earth is accounted for Uranium 238 is about 1.2 x 10^18 Bq.
Now, the decay rate of an isotope is linearly related to both it’s age and parent-daughter parameter. The parent-daughter parameter is will vary with each individual sample, but the average decay rate will not. So the age of the Earth should correspond to the decay rate of Radiometric Decay Constant.
Since Creationists Model stipulates that the age of the Earth is 760,000 less than it’s measured age (4,560,000,000 years divided by 6,000 years = ~760,000), therefore the decay rate for the Creationists Model must average 760,000 times it’s ACTUAL decay rate, or about 9.1 x 10^6 Bq/kg. That means that the flux of Earth’s radioactivity due to Uranium 238 alone (when you add in the total amount of Ur on Earth’s crust) should be a total of 9.1 x 10^23 Bq, or an average of about 4.6 x 10^15 Bq PER SQUARE MILE everywhere on the planet!
To put that into perspective, the Fukashima nuclear disaster is estimated to have released a total of about 5.4 x 10^14 Bq. That means in order for the Creationists Model to work, the planet must have released a total of 8.6 times more radiation than Fukashima did in total, EVERY square mile on the planet, EVERY second for the past 6,000 years.
AND THAT IS BEING GENEROUS.
We haven’t even calculated the radioactivity of every other isotope and added them all up, nor did I take into account that there was more Uranium 238 (and therefore more radioactivity) in the past.
So, since we do not and have never experience such a overwhelmingly vast amount of radioactive decay rate, we can be confident that the Earth is definitely not 6,000 years old. In fact, radioactive decay at a rate to permit a young Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth.
“You see, the Professor and I can go on and on and on and bore you with our technical definitions. Whatever he says, I have a rebuttal and back and forth.”
No, you don’t. You, nor any creationist, as a rebuttal to everything scientists say. At best, they have one thing they can respond with to everything scientists say, and that is “I dunno, therefore God did it.”
We could rationalize a few of the facts differently. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate –or can be accounted for by– only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot imply two mutually-exclusive opposing positions.
Besides, we’re obviously not both looking at ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, or the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution as well as directly disproving creationism. But you know what we’ve never seen? We’ve never seen anything “created”. No one has ever seen a complex life-form (or anything else) magically pop out of thin air. But that’s what creationists are arguing for!
“We could go outside right now and the stars can come down and form the words in the sky, “God created the world,” and the evolutionists would blame it on those clever Baptists.”
And if we go outside the next night and the stars spell, “just kidding, LOL, there is no God” would theists just go, “oh well, I guess there really is no god after all, I’ve just been fooled all this time”? I highly doubt it. Why? I’ve had theists admit to me that even if Krishna popped in front of them, in the flesh, and told them that he was the one and only god that is and ever was and ever will be, that they would still reject him and pray to Jesus Christ.
So, if I saw I went outside and saw the stars re-arrange themselves to read “God created the world,” regardless if I accepted that line or not, I would still believe in the fact of evolution. Even if God created the world, God still could have used evolution as part of his plan to create the first humans, as millions of theistic evolutionists believe in today.
So whatever the stars may say, it would be irrelevant. This entire movie so far as not demonstrated anything that evolution is false and could not have happened.
“To me, the most troubling aspect about this issue is that in our society today, evolution is being taught in our schools and universities across this land, as a matter of fact.”
Because it is a fact.
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics.
It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.
It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in the scientific literature and in practical application.
It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.
It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.
It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development as well a chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geological column.
It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition of that term.
It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and document dozens of time both in the lab and in national controlled conditions in the field, and that instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.
It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidential support or scientific validity and no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria of being a theory.
Evolution is a fact!
Despite the fact that creationists will lie about everything in this list, these are the FACTS of evolution, meaning of each of these points are demonstrably true and measurably accurate, thus it is a matter of knowledge rather than mere belief.
“But no one can scientifically prove evolution, just as no one can scientifically prove that God created the world, since none of us were present to witness it. Both of these teaching then become a matter of faith.”
Evolution has been scientifically proven, it is the well most supported scientific theory there is.
And by admission, creationists have declared that “no one can scientifically prove that God created the world.” That is the one line spoken by a creationist thus far that has any truth to it.
Is it unscientific because “none of us were present to witness it”? No. It is unscientific because it is unscientific, that is that all the scientific evidence points to evolution and against creationism. As I already mentioned earlier, science is not all about observation alone. Detectives and forensic scientists were not there to “witness” the murder, but they can examine the evidence of the crime scene to determine who, when, and how the murder took place. When we examine the evidence of the world and universe, all the evidence points to life deriving from a common ancestry, not spontaneous generation and popping out of thin air like creationists argue for.
“The evolutionists has nothing but vast periods of time, random chance events, and the ever-changing ideas of man to base his worldview upon.”
A key word missing from this list is: evidence. The evolution side is the only side with any evidence to stand on.
Yes, there is a lot of time due to the simple fact that the earth is old. Very old. That is not a belief or matter of opinion, it is a verifiable fact. Random chance events always happen, like the meteor that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, but evolution via natural selection (the driving force of evolution) is the exact opposite of random. And changing ideas is not a bad thing or something to shy away from. It is when we learn and make new discoveries, we must make new models or improve existing models to fit reality. Some models and theories are built this way, others are discarded or replaced when new evidence comes to light and reveal those models to be false. For example, expanding planet theory addresses some compelling points which plate tectonics doesn’t adequately account for. But it also calls for assumptions that can’t be justified; it’s refuted by definite observations that are only supportive of plate tectonics; and it can’t explain everything that tectonics does. But remember also that the man who first proposed the theory of plate tectonics was ridiculed for it to the day he died, though his theory has since gained universal acceptance in the worldwide scientific community.
“While the one who holds to Creation, has his beliefs firmly rooted in the truths contained in the Bible and a personal God who created everything.”
Notice that he only says this group has “beliefs.” That is, indeed, all they have. Take note in this whole debate, that it is far more important to creationists on what you believe rather then what is true.
There is no proof whatsoever that there is a personal God that created anything. As Stephen was pressed on earlier to present any scientific evidence to substantiate what was in the Bible, Stephen admitted “I cannot offer scientific proof.”
“I loved this university. I loved teaching my students. But one thing got in my way; led to my downfall.”
Your inability to teach biology science and desire to lie to students with myths and falsehoods. That was your downfall.
“It wasn’t until I was visited by a new friend that I came to realize it. And it was not you, Marcus. I blamed you, but it was not you. It was me and my pride. I was the one who was at fault twelve years ago, not on what I was teaching but in how I went about it.”
That is the second thing that is true spoken by a creationist in this film.
“I should have taught my students to look at both sides of the evidence, realizing that everyone individually, has to make their own choice. Either you are going to look at life through mans ideas or God’s word.”
There is no “both sides” of the evidence. I’ll let Ken Miller, a REAL university professor and a Christian, explain why this “teach the other side” argument is complete bollocks.
Now that Ken Miller had his say, and he is 100% right that the “teach the other side” is just one big CHEAT, I’d like to go into little more detail on why there are no “other sides” to evolution. Since we are talking about evolution vs. creationism, let’s talk about a particular favorite topic of creationists: the Grand Canyon. Creationists love to site the Grand Canyon as “proof” there was a world wide flood, that the flood waters carved out the canyon. Ignoring the huge hole in that belief that if that was true then we would expect to see lots and lots of Grand Canyons all over the world. But we don’t, and the simple fact is the Grand Canyons shape and geologic history reveals that it cannot and was not formed quickly. The steep shape of it points to it being formed through a slow progression of the river that created this meandering body. Meandering is a consequence of the graduating coercion of flat land, as with the Colorado plateau. Rushing flood waters will never creating a meandering pattern as we see in the Grand Canyon. What they WILL do is cut a straight line, and anyone capable of looking at a map of the Grand Canyon can see for themselves that the Grand Canyon is definitely not a straight line.
So as you can see, there is no “both sides” of such debates. All the evidence points to the Grand Canyon formed slowly over millions of years, and all biological evidence pointing to common descent and genetic variation over time.
“So if evolution, follow where that leads. If God, then serve the Lord. We can’t prove anything here tonight, we can only present theories.”
Another despicable tactic used by creationist, misrepresenting the word “theory.” Creationists often portray “scientific theory” was nothing more than a guess that has never been proved. When in fact, scientific theories are the exact opposite.
So, if a creationist actually could present a “theory” to this debate, that would actually be an astounding first (seriously), and it would be welcomed because all new data and models is welcome in science…. but there is no scientific theory in creationism. No branch of creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory. They can’t because science demands both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true to any degree at all. A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion. And that is exactly what creationism is. It is not scientific in any sense of the matter.
“You can chance your eternity on the views of Freud and Darwin if you want. I’m putting my trust in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for my sins, was buried and rose again on the third day.”
Good luck with believing a story that has no proof to stand on: a mythical story of a failed (and fake) messiah spread by hearsay with no contemporary eye-witness sources anywhere.
“I know some of you will call that stupidity. I am calling it humility.”
Believing completely outrageous claims from the most incredulous sources with no evidence provided even without asking for evidence (and encouraged not to ask for evidence and just believe anyway) can only be called “humility” in the heads of the insane.
“And I will trust and I will follow Christ and wait on the hope of eternal life that He offers. May you find that same hope.”
Portland ends it there, and apologizes to Kaman for his attitude and bitterness. Then he walks off the stage with Stephen.
The moderator asks Kaman if he would like to add anything. Kaman says nothing. The debate ends there. THANK GOODNESS.
And that’s that. Finally, I got this done.
And as you can see, this was a complete shit movie, spouting creationist nonsense left and right. I really have no kind words for a movie that is packed with such blatant and odious lies that can be easily refuted with the minimalist effort of research (like claiming evolution is a religion, when that horseshit was debunked many times in courts. Did these filmmakers ever once wonder why evolution is still taught in schools when anyone could have easily gone to the court and get evolution removed by calling it a religion?)
I cannot help but wonder where were the heads of these film makers were when they were drafting the “debate” part…. because nowhere in this whole thing did they even address evolution. They touched on abiogenesis, the Big Bang, dating methods and the fossil record, and that’s it!! Basically they touched on everything except evolutionary biology. Where was the talks on genetics? Or speciation? Not once mentioning a single law of evolution? Nowhere. And for that matter, where was the evidence for creationism???? Again, nowhere. All the other side provided was “I can’t give you scientific proof” followed by a series of counters like “your so-called evidence based on dating methods is wrong.” Ultimately in the end, this movie made it appear like the evolution side had no evidence, whereas neither did the creationist side. Essentially it’s the film makers way of saying, “oh well since they both don’t have a leg to stand on, let’s teach the kids both.” Bollocks, they did not even try to present anything that supports evidence, no attempt or sign of effort. These film makers are both lazy and liars.
And I cannot help but feel more pissed is that the film makers must feel pleased with themselves over this garbage, because they definitely made this to influence young kids in college or planning to go to college, to hook them into their fundamentalist branch of Christianity. Any teen or adult moved by this movie and attempting to “stand up” to college professors are going to deliberately retard their education. After all, why bother learning or remembering anything from science, history, or philosophy classes that may contradict your preconceived fundamentalist beliefs? Not only that, these kids are going to ultimately humiliate themselves in class in front of their classmates, especially if they have a professor who has a well thought-out response.
This is why people like me exist, to defend science and reason wherever we see an assault on it, to help educate those who are seeking answers and to help correct those who have been mislead with misinformation, and we will continue to do so throughout our lives. Because in the end, creationism will inevitably die off, just as geocentrism and Flat-Eartherism are widely viewed as fringe wacko faiths by society at large, even by mainstream faiths. Even the Catholic Church had to drop geocentrism when the science was overwhelming and undeniable… and already the Church has accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution — the ball is already rolling, and it will create an avalanche. Granted the general populace throughout Europe is way ahead of Americans in regards to accepting the theory of evolution, but that will change dramatically as education continues to flourish and information becomes more widespread, but the time will inevitably come. So to the film makers of this cinematic garbage, and to all creationists out there, you’ve had a good run (and provided us with good laughs), but it’s over. It’s over. It didn’t end today or recently, it’s been over for over a century (thanks Darwin). There is no evidence “on both sides,” the overwhelming evidence favors only one side: the theory of evolution.