Monday, May 4, 2009

Anti-Evolution Children's Song

A children's song, "Evolution: Redefined," teaching that evolution is a lie. From the YouTube page:
From believing in the evolution myth... to believing in the instant evolution of the heart. That's change you can believe in! Only Jesus saves!

(h/t The Huffington Post)


Katie said...

Wow. Very mid-90s use of light, color & camera work (not to mention hair & fashion choices - can you say 90210?).

Also, the subtlety of the lyrics is really stunning. "Your uncle was a monkey, swinging from a vine" Nuanced.

doug said...

In all fairness, I can clearly see how these guys don't believe in evolution. It appears that somehow they've been left out of the process entirely.

Matt F. said...

This video seems to get it right. The chick is too dumb to figure out science class, so she starts to fall asleep and an elderly out of touch rock band tells her she doesn't need to think to hard, cause God did it. I think that just about sums it up.

Kent H said...

doug, Matt F,
You ought to check out some intelligent design material sometime. I don't stand in support of this ad, but there is a whole lot of science in support of "God did it." Again with the "those stupid Christian" sentiments again.

matt said...

anyone want to have an actual evolution vs. I.D. debate? as with the Joe the Plumber post above this one, Dem Bones seems to be using the dumbest denominator as the spokesperson for two extremely difficult issues, just so that some of the contributors to this blog can swing at tee-d up softballs.

Matt F. said...

I have looked at some intelligent design material. It is not science, it is working backwards from a supernatural explanation. There are hard questions in science, but as soon as you invoke a supernatural explanation, you stop working to answer those questions. That is why there is not, for all intents and purposes, an ID versus science debate. One side throws up their hands and declares that we can never figure out how something happened naturally, the other side does a lot of never reported and exhausting work figuring out how it actually happened. So ya, Matt, if you want to have the debate I will take the 99 percent of scientists who work on this stuff against you and the hacks at the Discovery Institute.

matt said...

well, it's gonna be hard to do, given your bias towards my "hackiness", but i'll try to lay out a few key points that darwinian evolution fails to address.

for the record, as an engineer, it was very hard for me to begin to question my lifelong belief in the "theory" of evolution, given it's basis in science and presumably, logic. but a chance conversation with a co-worker i respected led me to start looking for some answers to legitimate questions that i felt science had not explained. that's what some people like to refer to as being "open minded".

first of all, there is plenty of debate, and i recommend you attend an ID vs. Evolution debate sometime. They are fascinating, but i digress.

darwinian evolution posits that species change over time due to random mutation and natural selection. i want to talk about natural selection first.

natural selection and inter-species evolution are not the same as macro-evolution, or species to species transformations. one species adapting to it's surroundings to enhance it's survival rate is called natural selection and is not debated at all by ID. for example, most biologists recognize that there are many bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibacterial hand lotion. they're calling them "super bugs". this is a great example of a species adapting to it's environment, however, the key thing to understand is not that these bugs are mutating and creating new DNA that is resistant to these lotions, but that the ones who already contain that DNA are the ones who are surviving, and then creating more bacteria that share that DNA. that is micro-evolution, not species to species transformation. in fact, natural selection, by definition, creates a *loss* of genetic information, not a gain.

the other part of the theory is that small random mutations occur, which alter the DNA of a species in a way that makes it more adaptable to it's environment. the theory also holds that given a large enough amount of time, eventually there will be enough of these mutations and subsequent natural selections that a new, presumably better or different (but equally effective), species will develop. the problem with this part of the theory is that this has never once been observed. no evolutionist can point to a single animal, bacteria, whatever, that they witnessed mutate into something that was more "fit". in fact, it's quite the opposite. nearly 100% of observed mutations have been to the detriment of that organism (think scoliosis). the others have had no effect (think 6 fingers). and not only have we not literally observed it, but the fossil record does not support it either. there should be zillions of fossils of mutated species that didn't make the cut, but there is not.

another item, and probably the most important, that the theory of evolution fails to address is how life started in the first place. how were the first proteins formed? how was DNA, which is so incredibly complex, yet must be perfect to work correctly, first get formed? lightening strikes on a rock is the most common explanation for the basic development of the first amino acids, and the Miller Experiment has long been heralded as "proof" that that was possible. There are many scientific papers on the inaccuracies and faulty assumptions of the Miller Experiment, however, even if it were true, amino acids don't just sit around and form themselves into a living being, so evolution still falls short.

on a philosophical note, we recognize design every day. look at your desk. intuitively you know that everything there was designed for a specific purpose by a designer with that purpose in mind. nothing there was created by accident or without a driving force behind it. yet, on the order of magnitude, and human is what?, a trillion times more complicated than a paper clip? yet we are to believe that we are a cosmic accident. but that cosmic force never created a paper clip, much less a hammer, a wheel, a match, etc...

that's just the surface, but it's a lot. i believe that there is a designer out there, and whether or not one chooses to worship it is a completely different subject. i don't know if it's the christian god, jewish god, muslim god, greek god, whatever, and i don't claim to know.

and one last thing, don't think for a second that scientists don't have a bias. theirs is usually the bias towards the natural, the explainable, the theoretical. it's a fact that there is a far greater concentration of atheists amongst evolutionary scientists than in the general population.

but what do i know, i'm just a hack.

Drew said...

In due fairness, he wasn't calling you a hack.

You should know that much earlier in the year, around the time of Darwin's birthday anniversary, where almost everything was written about evolution, science, and religion, that the commentors on this blog debated this issue back and forth tirelessly. So, some of the lack of engagement that you might feel, could just be a tiring out from both sides.

Kent H said...

Drew did this, but I was going to point out that we had a great discussion on these issues a while back. The problem with Matt F. is that he accepts the presuppositions of the Creationist and denies that evolutionists have one. That is simply an illogical place to start from and will only lead to each party banging his head against a wall. Believe me, I know.

matt said...

sometimes it's not cool to be fashionably late i guess, so thanks for the tip. if they're still available, i'll go back and read the old posts. i'm sure they're interesting.

Drew said...


email me (address at the right) and I will give you some of the links to save you the time and effort.

Matt F. said...

Just a few things. I won't get into the actual debate tonight, as it is late and I had a rough night at work, but I would be open to dicussing the issue with you in the future. First, as Drew pointed out, I wasn't calling you a hack. I was calling the scientists at the Discovery Institute hacks, which I realize is a bit intemperate but is a statement I would stand by. I would also agree with Drew that sometimes my frustration gets the better of me on this issue. I agree with Kent that I also have presuppositions, but it seems to me that a presupposition in favor of testability, reapeatability, evidence, and the other principles of science are necessary when discussing tangible and material things such as biology. And lastly, while I have not attended an evolution versus ID debate, I have listened to or watched several of them online and feel I am fairly familiar with the issues, although I am by no means a scientist (however, I am told I am a very good waiter and can write an essay on literature as well as most anybody). So I will look forward to continuing our discussion in the future.