http://knowitstrue.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/evolution.gif

Just thought I'd share this, don't think anyone else has posted it on here yet.

In northern Kentucky, you can find the Creation Museum, a museum dedicated to explaining the Earth’s history, geology, and paleontology through the lens of the Bible. In other words, the Creation Museum argues that the Earth has existed only 6,000 years and was created in just 6 days by God.

An example of the museum’s exhibits includes one dedicated to dinosaurs. The many fossils displayed are explained to have originated during different periods, such as the Lower Jurassic and Upper Cretaceous. However, all those same dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct in 2348 B.C.—the year of the flood in which God is said to have wiped the Earth clean of all but the animals kept safe on Noah’s ark. The museum addresses the issue of the movement of the tectonic plates once again using the biblical flood, claiming that the turmoil caused by the water broke the plates apart and washed them across the globe.

Scientists who have visited the Creation Museum—and a brave few have out of pure curiosity—are baffled by these explanations. Another exhibit near the museum’s entrance displays a girl feeding a carrot while two dinosaurs loiter nearby. Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, who visited the museum with a group of other scientists, could find no words to describe this scene beyond, “It’s rather scary.”

Since Noah’s arc could not possibly have fit all of the world’s animals, the Creation Museum explains that he just took two of each similar animal. So rather than taking two wolves, two cocker spaniels, and two golden retrievers, Noah had just two dog-like animals on this boat. From these two generic dogs, all of our current dog-like animals diversified. The museum even claims that foxes descended from Noah’s two dogs.

The differences between dogs and foxes are profound and no one would argue them as the same species. Beyond their physical differences, dogs and wolves have 78 chromosomes while a fox has only 34. The museum claims that all the diversification of Noah’s dog occurred in around 4,200 years, much faster than an evolutionist would ever believe possible.

To explain this rapid change, the Creation Museum says only, “God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.” To which Dr. Bengtson, a professor of paleozoology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, responded, “Thus in one sentence they admit that evolution is real, and that they have to invoke magic to explain how it works.”

And that brings me to my point: creationists are welcome to provide a counterargument to evolution. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But a theory such as creationism that has no scientific evidence to back it up cannot be claimed as scientifically sound. Nor should believers in creationism expect that it be taught on the same level in schools as the well-developed and explained theory of evolution. Until places like the Creation Museum, which as a museum should by all rights have endless evidence for its claims, can back creationism with true empirical evidence, creationists should not expect evolutionists to give creationism real consideration.

~Katelyn Larson

To read more about the Creation Museum feel free to visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?pagewanted=1

and

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/creationism-evolution/#

Atheism and Science

"Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”

--Darwin

Scientists such as Richard Dawkins (though he is an incredibly accomplished researcher) may alienate much of the public when they tie personal beliefs to all scientists. Whether or not atheism is correct, suggesting that science requires atheism might disrespect spiritual and religious scientists and turn lay people away from science. Darwin himself was a Christian until he was 40, literally believing the Bible and training to become an Anglican clergyman, before his discoveries about natural selection turned him towards agnosticism. Yet, as the quote above shows, Darwin expressed sensitivity towards respecting the religious beliefs of others.

“His own illustrious example was encouragement, was for a command to every thinker to make known to all his fellows that which he believed to be the truth."

--Aveling and Büchner, on Darwin

So what might drive Dawkins to pursue his arguments denouncing religion, despite these possible, negative effects? I believe the answer is what forms the basis of science: individuals’ desire to find and proclaim truth. And, Dawkins’s view is that we should treat ‘the God Hypothesis’ as a scientific hypothesis “which should be analysed as skeptically as any other,” leading him to conclude that no God exists. Perhaps Darwin’s actions support Dawkins’s proclamations. As the quote above shows, Darwin made the huge step of announcing his findings, even though they contradicted contemporary views on religion and alienated many people (including his wife). One might ask: why shouldn’t atheist scientists do the same?

However, many scientists believe that the question of the origin of the universe lies beyond science. After all, how can we observe whether or not the universe is all that there ever was? Indeed, Darwin eventually published controversial claims, but these claims were based on the accumulation of natural observations. 

So, I leave it up to the reader: Are Dawkins’s claims valid? If so, are they supportable enough to be worth controversy, as Natural Selection was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

http://www.antitheists.co.uk/resources/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf

Religion, Education, and Evolution

Photo Credit:  http://coturnix.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/family-tree-cartoon.jpg?w=584

Here I’d like to talk about two articles that I consider particularly interesting because they contradict what I consider to be a general opinion at least in some media and in academia.

First, I’d like to look at this study  that focuses on a study by Schwadel that claims that unlike popular belief, increased education actually increases a belief in a higher power.  This does not mean that the more education that a person has, the higher chance they are to be Christian or Muslim, or any other religion, but rather to have general belief.  In fact, the study said that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to claim that their religion is the only way, but the more likely they are to believe in an afterlife.  The article puts several more of these interesting findings very well in a series of bullet points which I will quote here: 

“-Education had a strong and positive effect on religious participation. With each additional year of education, the odds of attending religious services increased 15 percent.

-Increases in education were associated with reading the Bible. With each additional year of education, the odds of reading the Bible at least occasionally increased by 9 percent.

-Education was related to respondents' switching of religious affiliations. The odds of switching to a mainline Protestant denomination increased by 13 percent for each year of education.

The more educated respondents were, the more likely they were to question the role of religion in secular society. Yet, they were against curbing the voices of religious leaders on societal issues and supported those leaders' rights to influence people's votes. “

It seems that becoming more religious as you become more educated also influences your ideas of religion and politics.  Fortunately, more education still opposes outright interference of religion with politics although suggestion is supported. 

Another interesting article was focused on the reasons why people accept or don’t accept evolution.  Commonly, it is thought that all a person needs to do is look at the facts logically to accept evolution, and if that person does not accept evolution, he or she is being irrational.  

This study introduces a new idea.  Ha, Haury, and Nehm conducted a study after finding that the research on religion affecting acceptance of evolution was contradictory.  In some studies religion interfered with acceptance of evolution, but sometimes it actually did not.  In a quest to discover a consistent reason, they explored emotional responses to evolution.  Their study suggests that the “gut feeling” that we experience is actually very important to if someone will accept evolution.  If a person "just feels like" evolution is wrong, they may completely refute evolution even in light of the most air-tight evidence.  

They propose presenting students with data and also presenting information about “gut feelings” and how we process information so that students can make a better, informed decision.  Personally, this sounds like a much more appealing way of convincing students of evolution.  Some religious groups are famous for trying to rhetorically beat acceptance into people, and that is usually to no avail.  The same might be said of evolution: if you just tell someone that they must accept evolution, there may not be acceptance.  Appealing to the emotions at the root of the denial of evolution might be more effective at convincing people of the facts.  I'm in favor of the widespread acceptance of evolution, and this might be the start of something truly revolutionary in the classroom.

Food for thought.

ARE WE NOT EVOLVING ANYMORE?

HUMAN EVOLUTION GRINDS TO A HALT?

Leading geneticist Steve Jones asked 'Is Human Evolution Over?' as part of the University of Edinburgh's Enlightenment Lecture Series.

Leading geneticist Steve Jones from University College of London shook up the scientific world by claiming that evolution no longer applies to modern homo sapiens, and that in fact, if we are to survive for another million years, our descendents are going to look exactly like us. His hypothesis revolves around three reasons. One, that with the advent of modern technological ease, natural selection due to competition has been erased. Two, since there are now fewer older fathers, and that men tends to copulate with fewer women as compared to earlier times, there will be less selection due to genetic mutations. Three, random change due to population isolation is dwindling due to better connectivity and lower inbreeding.

This theory is to some extent supported by the research conducted by University of Chicago Geneticist, Chung-I Wu. The study shows that while DNA sequences of primates seems to be experiencing rapid change, the sequences in the human brain remain surprisingly static. This could be because of the brain’s immense specificity and complexity, which leaves very little room for evolutionary tinkering, counters Dr. Wu. He says that even a little bit of change could render a part of the brain functionless.

There are many counter-arguments to Dr. Jones’s hypothesis, the most logical of which I found to be Dr. Hawkes’ s Weblog. Bloggers of Discover Magazine have taken it upon themselves to tear this theory down. The Guardian even published a debate about this contentious theory.

As for me, as much merit as Dr. Jones’s theory has, I lean more towards the second pool of opinions. To over-simplify, most people assume that humans will either evolve towards a super-species that is capable of incredible feats, or couch-potatoes, glued to their machines and incapable of independent thought and action. I think either of those theories is vastly radical. In my opinion, evolution will keep happening – not as radically as before because of the lack of cutthroat competition (and here, I am talking about industrialized countries – low-income countries will face their own isolated natural selection due to the high disease burden and extreme poverty). But overall, the very fact that there is lower inbreeding, greater social intermingling, less geographical division will lead to an evolution based not entirely on genetics, but also on social and cultural factors.

What else but evolution can explain this image, published on Time magazine’s cover, in 1993? It is startling, at least to me, than over 15 years later this face seems so eerily familiar.

Humor

Here are a some funny links related to the evolution debate:


Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1276#comic
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=705#comic
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1820#comic
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif

The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/kansas-outlaws-practice-of-evolution,2098/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-believe-in-evolution-except-for-the-whole-triass,11313/

Stephen Colbert
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228362/may-21-2009/47-million-year-old-fossil
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/83793/march-28-2007/the-word---monkey-business
Interviews
Evolution and Faith:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/250617/september-30-2009/richard-dawkins
Father of ID:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/90952/august-02-2007/michael-behe
Evo-Devo:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/147281/january-14-2008/neil-shubin
The Y Chromosome:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/411143/march-26-2012/exclusive---david-page-extended-interview
Primates:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/148996/january-30-2008/frans-de-waal


P.S. The evolution of humor itself is a scientific mystery. Here's one idea:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987798900615

Easter, Intelligent Design, and the Pope

Check out this article in which the Pope accepts evolution.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/146607175.html

Who'd a thunk?

Is Intelligent Design Simply Creationism for Intellectuals?

The short answer is no but here's why.

In this blog name we have Intelligent Design and Creationism coupled together. I think it would be a good idea to say exactly how these two views differ because they certainly are not the same.

The Creationism I will be talking about is the Jewish/Christian version mostly because this is the most popular form in the US. Although there are many different forms of this version of Creationism they all hold the same views:

• all life was created by the actions of God
• Only God can create new forms of organisms
• the most common theory for the origins of the universe and life are accounted in the Biblical Book of Genesis
• it uses scientific evidence to support scripture

Intelligent Design proponents, on the other hand, have the following statements:

• all life came about through the actions of an intelligent Designer
• the designer does not have to be God although most proponents of ID believe it is
• their main argument for thinking there is a Designer is the complexity found in organisms – the best theory they believe to explain some types of complexity is an intelligent Designer

The main difference between the two seems to be the use of scientific evidence. For ID proponents they claim that they make observations in the world like any other scientist in any other field would and from those observations propose intelligent design as explanation for the observations. Creationists, on the other hand, first look at the holy scripture then turn to scientific findings to support the holy scripture.

It is clear that ID tries to exclude any reference to religious texts or beliefs. Many claim ID is creationism under the guise of science but ID proponents are not trying to prove the validity of the bible’s creation story.

Many also argue that the ID theory is not as scientifically valid as it claims to be. In searching this topic I have yet to find ID presenting empirical evidence for the existence of a Designer. Their main evidence is the complexity of organisms – something so complex could not come to be by chance –  but I wonder if that is a strong enough piece of evidence as it is not something that they have tested. This is where the line between Creationist and ID theorists blur: neither groups have proposed hypotheses that have been tested empirically nor observed repeatedly.

All arguments for their scientific weight aside, ID and Creationism are two different alternatives to evolution and at the moment they seem to be the only major alternative to evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml

Is There a Growing Divide between Scientists and the Lay Public?

The controversy created by evolution certainly has a foundation in issues of science and faith, but part of the controversy also comes from what seems to be a growing divide between science and the lay community. This divide has not always seemed so large—in the twentieth century, well-publicized innovations ranging from the polio vaccine to the moon landing inspired faith and passion in science. However, in America, excitement about science does not seem to reach the same levels anymore. Here are a few possible reasons why:

1.       An education system that used to be the best in the world declined, possibly leaving American children less enthusiastic about science and math: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-838207.html. To be fair, this decline may be overstated. It is only relative to other countries; on an absolute scale, our system has improved. Over the past twenty years, high school drop-out rates have decreased in America, and higher percentages of students take advanced science and math courses and go to college: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026.pdf, http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-14.pdf, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education/elementary_and_secondary_education_completions_and_dropouts.html . Of course, America would still like to be the best in education in the world, as well as reduce disparities between ethnic groups. But these data suggest the system is actually improving.

2.       Although it remains the most prestigious profession, science has slightly fallen in prestige (like most other professions): http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2005-05-23-prestige-usat_x.htm. However, considering that the poll was unscientific and most professions have fallen in prestige, we must take this information with a grain of salt.

3.       Some people (even educated ones) may believe that scientists insert their political agendas into their findings. http://theweek.com/article/index/226338/why-conservatives-increasingly-distrust-science-4-theories. This belief might explain some of the divide. Fundamentalist Christians tend to be political conservatives, and conservatives tend to see economic gain from environmental pollution as a bigger benefit/smaller risk than liberals do (liberal and moderate support remained flat). However, although scientists tend to be liberal, people who believe scientists purposely distort findings underestimate scientific integrity and the scientific consensus on such issues as evolution and global warming. 

4.       Perhaps the most important and likely reason is a problem that has always plagued scientific communication: scientific research is incremental and imperfect, whereas lay people expect cataclysmic, irrefutable facts. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 Thus, proponents of creationism/intelligent design (ID) not only denounce evolution as having modest findings and conflicting data, but they also tout their “theory” as a large, simple, unified set of assertions. Of course, in science those modest findings accumulate into large ones, and conflicts lead to greater understanding. And the large, simple, and unified assertions from creationism come from un-falsifiable, unscientific ideas.

Unlike science, the court of public opinion is a democracy, and some scientists may fear this democracy has turned more and more against them. But reasons 1 and 2 (above) seem weak and overstated by the media (I actually believed they were huge reasons for distrust of science before I wrote this post). Reason 3 may show that the growing political divide in America has included science in the fray. Finally, the most important reason, reason 4, is not news. The incremental and imperfect nature of science has always been difficult to communicate. But what is encouraging is that scientists can manage this issue.

Scientists can easily communicate why evolution is important—its broad impact in every aspect of biology has vastly improved our understanding of biochemistry, ecology, and medicine. Evolution helps us understand fundamental questions about our existence, questions everyone (not just scientists) has. And evolution is just utterly fascinating. The beauty and diversity of nature, especially the varied phenotypes of plants and animals, astound us from when we are young children. 

In conclusion, science and scientists still command great respect in America (though there is always room for improvement). But, as always, lay people also demand scientists to be great communicators and to explain science in an easy-to-understand way. Although various polls provide different numbers on how many Americans believe in evolution, at least one (conducted by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology) suggests that 61% of Americans would rather hear about evolution from a scientist than from a judge or a celebrity.

http://science.drvinson.net/polls

http://www.livescience.com/4787-survey-61-percent-agree-evolution.html  

Friends: Evolution vs Intelligent Design

So I can't get the video to embed here, but there's an episode of Friends in which Phoebe and Ross debate the merits of evolution versus creationism. The clips of their fight can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI.

What's most interesting about their debate is not their arguments and the facts they use to back them up, but the point Phoebe makes at the end (ignoring when she goes back on it of course). Regardless of our own opinions, we should all admit that there's the chance we're wrong. Science is always evolving as new information is discovered. So while you might be quite sure you're right, don't be afraid to acknowledge other options. At the very least, don't shoot them down without listening to someone else's argument.

~Katelyn

Are Evolution and Religion Mutually Exclusive?

Well, that cartoon pretty much sums it up.  Whether you believe in evolution or not, believe in a higher power or not, at this point we’re all human beings, and we all wonder about the world around us.  Fortunately, that means we have been able to start to understand some mysteries of the life from pathogens to the life cycle of stars, and we’ve managed to create wonderful things such as air conditioning and smart phones.  However, with a world of over 7 billion people, there are many sides to every issue, and as of late evolution has been very salient.  Here, we will explore 4 sides of a very common issue here in The States.  Are religion and evolution compatible?  

First we’ll take the fundamentalist Christian view:

This view says that evolution is false because the book of Genesis in the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days.  You can read this creation story here. Evolution takes more than 7 days, so it cannot be true.  This perspective takes the creation story literally and asserts that evolution is not true.  Another reason that this view promotes is that evolution is false because we are made in God’s image, and He put us here as we are; we did not “evolve from apes” as many put it. 

Where do we hear this the most?  In politics!  This is an article from National Public Radio that sums up the controversy quite well.  The article is from 2005, but well written.  The same debates are still active today.   Basically, there are groups of people who believe that the biblical creation story should be taught in the classroom as an alternative to evolution.  Others say that either evolution and belief can coexist, or that whatever you believe, the creation story is not science and shouldn’t be taught in schools, especially with the separation between church and state.  Take what side you will on that point, but I will now take a moment to clear up an incorrect understanding of scientific theory that has spawned a lot of controversy lately, and mistakenly fueled arguments to keep evolution out of the classroom.

Some argue that since evolution is a theory and not a fact, it should not be taught in schools.  However, this stems from the common understanding of “theory” which generally means that it’s not quite as proven as a fact.  In the scientific use of theory, it is simply the pattern by which a fact is explained.  The parties that argue against evolution in the classroom have other things to say, but this particular argument is off base.  See here for more information about distinguishing between scientific fact and theory.

Now we’ll move onto the more liberal Christian view:

This view states that God made the world, but we weren’t around at the time, and He’s powerful enough to do it however he pleases.  Evolution is a well-substatiated theory, and it shows the complexity of God’s creation even more.  Under this view, evolutionists could be Christians and visa versa.

Francis Collins, most widely known for his work on completing the Human Genome Project and now for his appointment by President Obama to the director of the National Institute of Health, is a Christian who believes in evolution.  He founded an organization called Biologos that explores evolution in light of the Christian God and teachings.

On this site, Tim Keller, a renowned apologist and preacher at Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC, wrote an article about common obstacles that people have in reconciling Christian faith with evolution.  I will only talk about one of the points to be concise, but he delineates 4 major obstacles here.  Keller addresses Biblical authority and essentially argues against the 7 day creation model.  In fact, he states that the creation story in Genesis was never meant to be taken literally.   As with anything, when studying a passage well, you must look at it in context.  According to Keller, the creation story contains elements of poetry and hallmarks of “exalted prose narrative” common in Jewish tradition, which was expected to be taken as a lyrical version of a story instead of fact. 

In my view, why would God tell an ancient Mesopotamian shepherd such as Abraham about Mendelian genetics, linkage disequilibrium, or phylogenetic trees when society didn’t have the knowledge base to understand those things?  That’s not what the purpose of telling ancient peoples the creation story was.  The purpose of the retelling was to say that God made the world. 

Moving forward, we come to the evolutionist, atheist point of view.

The most well known evolutionist and atheist in the world, if I may make the declaration, is Richard Dawkins.  His organization, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, states as its mission “to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.”  Obviously, if religion is superstition to Dawkins and connected to such things as intolerance, he will not be of the mindset that evolution and any type of religion are compatible.  Dawkins is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, best-selling author, and proponent of “militant atheism” to overcome religion, as stated in his mission. 

He promotes that evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a world view.  In his book The Magic of Reality, about which he gave a talk at Rice University in 2011, he mentioned that he regards the Christian creation story the same as any other ancient creation myth.  In essence, that Christianity should be regarded no different than religions that worshiped Greek and Romans gods and goddesses, which western society now largely considers being false.

To my surprise, I stumbled across The God Delusion, perhaps Dawkins’ most well-known book, on the web here.  In this book, as you may imagine, Dawkins claims that belief in a god is a…delusion!  There are a lot of good arguments in this book, but I’ll focus on one that addresses what I mentioned that Keller said.  Keller claims that the creation story, taken in context of ancient Jewish poetry techniques, is true and should be believed.  Dawkins, on the other hand, sees this debate about what is and isn’t to be taken literally in the Bible as that “we pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories”  (p. 238). 

The Atheist that sees religion and evolution as compatible…

No such luck!  Atheism directly contradicts believing that a higher power exists, so I was not surprised when I couldn’t find an atheist that believed that evolution can be compatible with belief in a higher power.

However, I did find someone who was an agnostic and saw agnosticism and evolution as compatible.  That person is Charles Darwin.  Through his studies on evolution and tragic life events such as the death of his daughter, Darwin is generally recognized as being an agnostic.  In a letter to John Fordyce in 1879, Darwin describes his beliefs as this:  “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” (Found from this site). If Darwin believed in some higher power, then perhaps so can modern day agnostics.

With this, I’ll leave you to examine your own beliefs.  I also acknowledge that the above entry does not even scrape the surface of the variety of beliefs that exist today on these subjects, and am sorry that I could not explore them all or go into depth on any one belief.  I hope that reading this may help you start finding out what stance you take on this issue.  Good luck!

An Interview with an ID advocate

http://www.ucg.org/science/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-debate/

This is an interview from 2009 (I think) with a professor at UC Berkeley and his beliefs regarding evolution. He seems to be fairly opposed to evolution, and I’ll summarize some of his arguments here. He also provides a pretty interesting view on what he thinks of the ID vs Evolution debate going on now.

He starts off by stating that many people do not have a problem with the small-scale idea of evolution (such as change over time, or smaller changes within a species), but he says that what a lot of people have a problem with is Darwinism, which states that evolution is the mechanism by which all life came about. As he puts it, ID says that some features (but not necessarily all) of living creatures are explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Evolution on the other hand, states that all features of living creatures are brought about by unguided natural processes, which is why there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two ideas.

He goes on to dismiss one of evolution’s strongest pieces of evidence, the existence of a tremendous amount of DNA in our genomes. He states that recent discoveries have indicated that this junk DNA is not necessarily useless. He doesn’t elaborate on this, but I do remember reading somewhere a while back (and I apologize for not having a source for this), that a lot of DNA that doesn’t code for proteins still plays a non-transcriptional role in affecting our bodies’ processes, for example: affecting methylation sites and interactions with histones to determine how DNA folds up into chromosomes.

He then makes the argument (which I think is a bit silly), that the Origin of Species is filled with so many theological references that it too should not be taught in schools.

He goes on to talk about a lot of mistakes Darwin had when he first proposed the theory of natural selection, which frankly makes complete sense given how little information about genetics he had access to. Doesn’t make much sense to criticize Darwin for not applying scientific knowledge to his theory if that knowledge wouldn’t be available for decades to come.

He ends by saying that the high similarity between Chimpanzee and Human DNA actually serves as evidence against evolution. He says this because evolution is based around heritable changes in DNA, and if human and chimp DNA is so similar (98% similarity), how can we account for the tremendous amount of morphological differences between the two species.

Overall I can’t say I agree with him, but he does bring up some interesting points, and it is important to listen to both sides of the debate and not just the side you support.