Extremely interesting. After 47 years, as a practising biologist, I am thrilled to see Darwin's hoax emerging. Thanks to Science. It seems stunning that it held sway for so long
@@kentclark9616- Imagine getting a job at Ford Motor but you’ve always been a Dodge driver but Ford is the only place that was hiring. So you go to work every day and park a few blocks away and walk in. You put your Ford hat on when you get to the front gate and go inside to talk about Ford all day. Why do you keep it up? Because you have a family to feed. In the Biology case you have student loans to pay for and your research is dependent upon grants that come from institutions through private individuals who have agendas. Produce results or lose your funding. Publish or don’t get tenure.
@kentclark9616 Manu intellectual want to believe there is no ultimate truth and God that will judge people. So natural selection and Darwinism is really attracts people who don't want a God to exist because they can live a judgment free life and do want they want with fear of he'll or anything of that sort. Basically it's a convenient theory for people to believe in so they can live in a God less life.
If the book is about Darwin the man rather than about his theories I'm frankly far less interested in it than I thought I might be. It's the ideas that interest me, not the personalities.
as a Brit Darwin's words always come across to me as typically weak, weaselly, overly qualified with ifs buts and maybes, and oblique to the point of evasive, I really do not like reading him at all. But it is not true that Darwiin had no scientific qualifications. His experience at Edinburgh university with Robert Grant inforally studying marine biology was invaluable to him - albeit a side matter considering that he was meant to be studying medicine as his father wished. In biology (as in psychology and many other 'academic' disciplines) experience is more important than degrees and doctorates.
but it would seem logically that can't be the case. No one belongs to 'religion' but to a certain religion. "over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God!!!!!! ...The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over-stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian, whilst over 20% were Jewish
What a blessing truth is. Thank you.
i love the picture that leads this video! The pert finch picking away the strands of the knot on a very weak link, indeed.
Thank you for posting this presentation
This was a great interview. Very insightful!
Extremely interesting. After 47 years, as a practising biologist, I am thrilled to see Darwin's hoax emerging. Thanks to Science. It seems stunning that it held sway for so long
Can I ask you, it seems confusing to me that so many biologists are so sold on the idea? Any idea why that might be?
@@kentclark9616- Imagine getting a job at Ford Motor but you’ve always been a Dodge driver but Ford is the only place that was hiring. So you go to work every day and park a few blocks away and walk in. You put your Ford hat on when you get to the front gate and go inside to talk about Ford all day.
Why do you keep it up? Because you have a family to feed. In the Biology case you have student loans to pay for and your research is dependent upon grants that come from institutions through private individuals who have agendas. Produce results or lose your funding. Publish or don’t get tenure.
@kentclark9616 Manu intellectual want to believe there is no ultimate truth and God that will judge people. So natural selection and Darwinism is really attracts people who don't want a God to exist because they can live a judgment free life and do want they want with fear of he'll or anything of that sort. Basically it's a convenient theory for people to believe in so they can live in a God less life.
@@kentclark9616 But that assumes that the education of doctors, for example, has any connection to actual doctor work,. It almost never does.
There didn't seem to be any consumer protection acts for bad theories pushed on the public
Thanks for the knowledge that you put efforts to delive to us.
Oba! Brasileiro em casa. Bem vindo!
I want to stay alive more, and I reject any effort to delive me.
If only 19th-century society and influentials treated Darwin's ideas the way he treated his own work... How many evils would have never happened?
Great interview, thank you! And well done for this lovely study - I hope there will be an audiobook on audible. Thank you!
I'm not sure why educational credentials are mentioned. It doesn't really count for much.
man you can say that again
Are you joking?
❤
I continue to be baffled why almost everyone refers to Darwin’s work as a theory. By any measure, it is a hypothesis not a theory.
It's actually more of a concept than a theory.
I call it a theory unproven. Common people care less about the scientific use of these terms i think.
Is Andrew McDiarmid just Stephen Meyer putting on an accent? If not, my apologies, and the similarities are uncanny!
If the book is about Darwin the man rather than about his theories I'm frankly far less interested in it than I thought I might be. It's the ideas that interest me, not the personalities.
All right, however under personality hides the motivation which drives our thoughts, especially when speculating.
Would you say that about Mein Kampf?@@zbuchus
Excellent rebuttal.@@zbuchus
The Origin of Species was published as a book - not a theory.
It was a book about a theory. can you grasp that
@@markcredit6086 Just the claim that something NEW is being said, means it MUST be a theory. You can't make hay out of your own data.
Evolution through random, unguided chance is all they have. Explain it away.
Promo*SM 😞
as a Brit Darwin's words always come across to me as typically weak, weaselly, overly qualified with ifs buts and maybes, and oblique to the point of evasive, I really do not like reading him at all. But it is not true that Darwiin had no scientific qualifications. His experience at Edinburgh university with Robert Grant inforally studying marine biology was invaluable to him - albeit a side matter considering that he was meant to be studying medicine as his father wished. In biology (as in psychology and many other 'academic' disciplines) experience is more important than degrees and doctorates.
Wahaha they still hung up on Darwin.
Basically the same way they are hung op on their 3000 year old book.
What year is it now?
did somebody just take a puff of the dum dum stick
Exactly!!!! Klaarnou, what year is it? Can you tell me?
First to comment
Except you didn't!
Religion subverts itself.
but it would seem logically that can't be the case. No one belongs to 'religion' but to a certain religion.
"over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God!!!!!! ...The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over-stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian, whilst over 20% were Jewish
Would that apply to atheistic Humanism as well (ruled a religion by the Supreme Court)?
Really ? where is the evidence ? Wait you are the evidence. You believe your own statement based on flawed ideas.