A Creationist Lecturer...?

Veith is a nutritional physiologist, and had a doctorate in Zoology from the University of Cape Town.

"Charles Darwin was the one who proposed the idea of natural selection".The Greeks proposed it, and it was called common knowledge to the Muslims during the Islamic Golden age (9th - 14th centuries). It is a different theory that has risen many times throughout history, but it's the same concept.

I would give links but I am getting a "999" error every time I try. Google "al-Khazini - evolution".

The accusation of Huxley being involved with the Illuminati is unfounded. Huxley described himself as "agnostic", not Adventist. Also, I couldn't find anything proving that all Adventists are linked with the illuminati

The "everything happens by chance" is a common straw-man by creationists, it is technically true, but there is more to it than that. That straw-man opens the way for the "too complicated to happen by chance" argument, which you hear him state next.

The "cat and the hat" was another straw man analogy. DNA doesn't form sentences. It is more like computer coding. Thats still a stretch of an analogy though. He is stating that "mutations are not a good thing". It is true that a good deal of mutations are a hindrance, but those are weeded out very quickly. Also, it implies that mutations are linear, they either better or worsen an animal. That is not always the case, they could simply be immaterial.

Next, he brought up that embryonic development has been viewed as a "slideshow" to view evolution. He is correct that this has been discounted, but it is still viewed as a way to connect all forms of chordate life.

Then he discusses cell diversity through mutation, and questions the origin of "specialized cells", muscle cells to brain cells "Where does this gene that wasn't originally needed come from?" He then applies this question to many different animals, which variate even though being classified as the same species. I guess he forgot about gene mutation. This problem was "solved" on the evolutionary lines billions of years ago.

"Darwin creates the foundation of racism" And I guess all the racism before Darwin doesn't count? This is an absurd and bogus statement. While it is true that Darwin said that African people "show more physical characteristics that can be viewed in apes than any other humans", and Hitler euphemised his eugenics program against the Jews with the term "Social Darwinism" which has stuck as a real concept, the connections end there.

Towards the end he actually starts talking about Creationism, that God simply "loves variety". While that may be so, it does not disprove evolution. He then says that only with this perspective can you appreciate the beauty of life. Why? I find it all very interesting, complex, and beautiful too, and I understand and accept evolution.

It was a much better argument than the average anti-evolution crap, but really didn't mean anything. Like every creationist argument, it boils down to "Evolutionists are wrong (no substantial proof), God just made it that way". I have a high school level of understanding of biology and could debunk this.

Oy, I watched all but the last minute of that clip and didn't really hear anything of substance.

He talks in circles about how complicated things are and how on earth did these complex systems come to be but never really comes out and specifically presents any lucid arguments against evolution. (what was that whole thomas-aldous huxley-illuminati thing about? that smellls fishy - why bring in the illuminati?)

The cat and the hat example is poorly done and he's left out so much information about the DNA=> RNA=> protein=> phenotype progression that it's been eviscerated. He implies that most mutations are harmful, when in fact most mutations have pretty much zero effect on an organism's survival. (again, he <implies> that most mutations are bad, but he never actually says so - that statement would be false)

As for truly "bad" mutations that would result in an organism's death (like a mutation rendering a red blood cell completely inactive) - well, we never see those because those organisms don't develop properly and don't get born. Things that bad don't get passed on because they cause an organism to be so dysfunctional that it simply can't survive.

He asks a lot of questions like "how could an entirely new gene evolve when it never existed?" Well, biologists have mutiple theories (and very good evidence) about that question. When he talks about how you can have one species of butterfly with so many different wing patterns, as far as I'm concerned, that is good evidence that there exists a huge variety of characteristics for natural selection to "select" from.

He understands the biology, sure, but he vastly oversimplifies things. Maybe it's just the clip, but all the facts are so glossed over that he leaves out a lot of key details that are very important to having a proper understanding to the theory of evolution.

He discusses a broad range of topics, but nothing that actually proves/supports his view of creationism or his disbelief in evolution. It seems like he presents a lot of information (selected portions only) and backs away from making any actual arguments or conclusions about the information.

There's nothing wrong with his credentials. I'm sure that in whatever specific area he studies he is very proficient. By the same token, there are plenty of very well-known and well-respected scientists who still have some theories that others strongly disagree with.

And there are plenty of scientists who believe in both evolution and in God. I don't think that having a thorough understanding of evolution precludes the existence of a divinity of some sort. From my point of view, these ideas are not exclusive to each other.

As for Veith, I'm just plain unconvinced by what he says. No substance.

a) Darwinism does NOT lead to racism.

b) Piano and violin share a common ancestor. A long period of mutation and selection over a very long period of time has given us the two different instruments we see today. Still, if you open up your piano, you will see some very violin-like strings.

Creationism is faith. So what use is a non secular individual conversing approximately religious issues, whilst it may be relating to the technological understanding. yet i'm pondering it. i prefer to be a professor, and if all it takes to be one, is to assert "God did it" to each examination question, then this is an elementary journey.

There's no need to actually watch the video; creationists all use the same falsehoods and lies to make their points. You can read the rebuttal to any creationist argument you like at www.talkorigins.org.