Teach Creationism In Science Classroom | Chris - MN | The Atheist Experience 855 

His entire argument is, "I'm not saying exactly what I'm saying when you say it because that's exactly what I'm saying, but that's not what I'm saying."

Would creationists allow evolution to be taught in Sunday School? ‘nuf said.

Only one reason to teach Creationism in science classroom exists, and that is to show what a conspiracy theory is as opposed to science.

We should be teaching the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the science classroom according to Chris because it's just a valid a theory as creationism.

When we have science taught in a church then we can come to an agreement.

I feel so sorry for the people that have to live and work with Chris. So pompously and proudly uneducated. Sad

It's funny when ppl call in with a script then get corrected and accept the correction but dont realize that their premise no longer works

Chris belongs to the "man will never fly" school of thought when he says "we cannot"

For me, a year after this video, it is perfectly reasonable for Matt to leave the show. I'm surprised he survived! Be well, Matt. Take it easy.

"Well, if you would quit making mistakes." Matt is just awesome.

"we dont know everything therefore we should teach creationism, despite it not producing any results"

"Hello class. Magic Man done it! Class dismissed!"

A green unicorn farted life onto our planet while flying drunk through our solar system. It's a competing, not refuted idea. I demand it in my children's classroom! But if you need scripture for that I totally could write one.

The only thing that was excluded was logic and reasoning in his thought process.

Speaking here as a scientist: we'll teach mixes of demonstrably false and just unsubstantiated myths and legends in science classes when you start teaching testable and tested scientific knowledge in Sunday school and Bible study.

Creationism: the least supported/most outlandish explanation of how the world came to be.

Man is certainly mad, he can’t create a cockroach but he creates god’s by the dozen!

There's a MAJOR flaw in this guy's argument. If you want to teach creationism in schools while simultaneously agreeing with the theory of evolution, then it's a contradiction. Because creationism says that the god that supposedly created everything, created US in his own image.

Everyone knows that the Babylonian god Marduk killed the dragon Tiamat and created the universe and all life from her body. We teach that in biology class, right?

How do you teach creationism? You either believe in magic or not. "OK class, a magic man made us, now let's play kickball." What is there to study? Shortest class ever.

What would a student of creationism have to do to get an A+? Make a full sized man out of spit and dust? Teach a snake to talk? Donate a rib to the osteology department of the local hospital? Walk around in nothing but a fig leaf for a term? Give up eating apples? Or design an algorithm to prove that bishop Usher got the 6000 year date right?

As an AP/IB Biology educator, if I was told by admin. to teach any hint of Biblical Creationism or Intelligent Design I would immediately resign! Teaching pre-school fairytales that some sort of “random Humpy-Dumpty in the clouds made universes by magic” is not what I am about.

For a second there I thought Matt was going to break into a Vanilla Ice song. "Stop, collaborate and listen!"

Always the same mistake. Disproving one claim does not automatically prove another. You still have to prove yours on its own.

How does one jump from we don't know to 'an invisible person did it'. This is 2021.

Science class is for science, not made up crowbarred in nonsense. People who think creationism is science, clearly don’t understand how science works, it’s the equivalent of saying a mountain is liquid. Saying it, doesn’t make it so

Creationism is as stupid as dinosaurs on a boat.

People like Chris only plead for teaching Creationism in high school science classes. Why is it they never suggest it should be a mandatory course for a science degree in university?

There are several viable hypotheses for abiogenesis and zero viable hypotheses for creation by a supernatural being.

It's called "catalysis." It's one of the big things regarding biogenesis: Do the molecules that replicate auto-catalyze? A catalyst is a molecule that is involved in a reaction that speeds up the rate of reaction but is not consumed in the process. For example, the Haber process uses iron as a catalyst (with potassium hydroxide as a promoter) to speed up the reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen to form ammonia. So however life formed, it may be that the first reaction that resulted in life was difficult but once it happened, that life is now a catalyst for the next reaction. We see this in a roundabout way right now. DNA isn't something that forms easily. But if you have a DNA molecule, it is much easier to copy that molecule than it is to try to generate it from plain amino acids. We don't know how life started so we can't say if that was the case. But given the current state of life, it is not surprising that we don't find completely new forms of life appearing all over the place because the current life is busy using up the various resources. Any new life will have to compete with the life that already exists. And if the first step is hard, it's going to have an extremely difficult time establishing itself given the competition.

If Christians can use government to teach creation in schools, atheists should be able to preach and teach Sunday school in churches.

Let's teach shit about vampires and werewolf too. Let's teach about aliens while we at it.

Matt is so patient.

Force religion into science classes, then we get equal time. After every silly buy-bull verse read in church, you must read a paragraph from "Origin Of Species".

Even if he was granted that a super being may have created life , then was it a golden rooster ? A space worm farting life on planets ? An invisible magic god man who is three beings but is only one ? There's no evidence for any of them, but if I had to join one group it would be the Space Wormists

Theists are just not that intelligent

Chris like many theists is purposely misunderstanding and ignoring what he's being told . Because he realizes he doesn't have an argument for the real questions being asked . These are very dishonest tactics and if you really cared about whats true or not . Then you wouldn't resort to such dishonesty and actually listen and confront the points being made in response to your belief's or claims .

We don't know many details about nature. That's why we do science.

So, first it's important to get our terms right. Creationism and creation science are 2 different things. Creationism is a belief. Creation science is a pseudoscience. And we don't teach pseudoscience in science class.

In the end, he's just describing a form of panspermia

No surprise this guy is from Betsy de Vos territory.

I, a college dropout, am absolutely baffled by some of these people's complete lack of understanding of the science around biology, abiogenesis, and the origins and diversity of life.

There's equal evidence (zero) that I farted the universe into existence. Why isn't anyone teaching that to kids in science class?

The dream team. ❤️

Creationists have such a poor grounding in basic scientific methods they don't know how to present their own ideas (except maybe in a grossly manipulative way, trying to Trojan Horse their theology into the science classroom). But if they actually pay attention to the science then chances are they end up non-Creationists so maybe that's intentional.

Maybe we should teach in the classroom what misinfornation looks like!🤔

Currently, any NEW life that came into existence would be quickly eaten.

Every time I hear a theist say "and we take them to their logical conclusion" I think "here we go" 🙄 because you know it won't logically follow

How do we know new life isn't popping unnoticed into existence in the oceans all the time? What would this new life evolve into given enough time? It wouldn't evolve into anything because it would look just like food to some passing creature and be consumed immediately.

Most people take pharmaceutical products for some health condition. When you look up information on the drug you might be taking often you’ll find that the metabolic mechanism is not understood. Yet the scientific studies prove the drug works. For example anesthetics. Also the science will demonstrate how to take the drug safely. But we don’t attribute the metabolic action to a miracle because we don’t know everything about the drug.

Teach creationism, marvel comics, smurf lore and the science of leprechauns

Seems reasonable. Teacher: "Welcome to the first day of class, everyone. We'll be teaching both Creationism and science in this class. According to Creationism, God created all life as it currently exists. There is no evidence for that outside of the Bible. Now, let's go through the incredibly well-supported details of the theory of evolution by natural selection."

So here is a thing. This argument about complexity is interesting. Christians say for us to have complexity, it must have required an intelligent creator/designer. An intelligent designer is inherently complex. That means it must have had a creator. That means god must have had a creator. We therefore end up in an infinite regress where every complex creator needs a more complex creator. If you break that chain at god, you have no justification for not breaking it before god.

I think I got that Chris was getting at. I think he was saying that since man has the ability to create life (based on what he was talking about with science creating cells) that it means that creation is possible (since man was able to create) and that is the proof that it's possible. I understand what Matt was trying to say that Chis was leaving out the part about how science used existing building blocks to create the cells he was referring to.

11:33 "Let me hijack the findings of actual scientists for my religious agenda."

So funny how some religious people say we can't just make up things when we don't know something, yet they are first in line to believe something that was made up.

If we assume creationists are correct, and god came to be, uncreated, then we should expect to CONSTANTLY see invisible beings with unlimited, blank-cheque magical powers, springing into existance, all around us.

"We don't know what the Earth was like...therefore god." "Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin

in Spring 1999, My county required intelligent design be taught in my 2nd semester of AP biology. We did it on day one. The teacher said something to the effect of "I am going to teach Intelligent Design because it is required. Intelligent design states that all life was created by an intelligent designer. Any questions?" Then a pause, then a student asked "Does that mean like, God?" The teacher said "I am not allowed to answer that question. The concept says that it is an intelligent designer. Anything else?" Silence. And the teacher said "Alright, very good. You will not be tested on any of this because there's no requirement for that. We will now spend the entire rest of this semester covering the Theory of Evolution." We also touched upon abiogenesis, but this was done very carefully. We covered Miller-Urey, we touched upon panspermia, and the possibility of molecules such as amino acids naturally forming and surviving with meteorite impacts, which was rather bleeding edge stuff at the time. It was carefully explained that it was an unsolved problem, but at the same time, told that we can likely expect some exciting new things on the issue in the fairly near future. The difference between what was understood then regarding abiogenesis/Origin Of Life and what has been learned to date is massive and to me, I've found to be jaw-droppingly fascinating. Quite a lot of what advocates believe about Intelligent Design and the gaps in understanding regarding origin of life and Evolution requires pretending that progress in these fields pretty much halted somewhere around the 1970s or 1980s. Meanwhile, when I was taking BIO in 1999, the human genome project was a massive multi-year task currently in progress, finished somewhere around 2002, and did not even involve a singular human specimen. Using what was learned, we can sequence a genome of any organism we like, and it not only takes a fraction of the time, it takes a _tiny_ fraction of the time, and we can thank quite a bit of that on a combination of Moore's "law" and improvements in parallel processing. This has massively facilitated and improved the precision of comparative genetics, tremendously increasing our body of knowledge and understanding in just the past 20 years or so. And I think that's pretty cool.

Teaching creationism is a really short lesson that could be added to the end of any science class. “Or an invisible wizard cast a spell that made everything”

In high school Biology, my teacher was a creationist. Our textbook covered evolution. She didn't teach anything that week, just told us to read and the Friday quiz was an essay. Everyone got an A regardless of what you wrote. I guess that was her way of getting around the issue forty years ago.

Did a theist caller just say "We can create, not life, but what may be considered the precursor to life. The cells I was talking about earlier." so a theist admits that cells are not life? They must be pro choice then.

That "more complex being from another planet" explains nothing. It just changes the venue.

😂 “what’s unnatural?” “I don’t know!” 😂 What the fuck would we be teaching?!? Lmfaoooooo 🤦‍♂️

The thumbnail for this clip said the length was 21:12. The RUSH fan in me was so happy. But now the time index only shows 21:11 now that I'm in the clip itself. Sad :(

“Teach Creationism in Science classrooms” Why teach ancient literature and the effect it has had on gullible people in science?

Chris saw Prometheus and took it seriously XD

Which of the tens of thousands of proposed sky daddy's should we teach about that could have supposedly done it? Where did those beings originate from?

His ignorance is..... Wow, words fail me. He comes in with an serious misunderstanding of science. We don't teach creationism in science class because it's not science.

Whoever told him it was a great idea, call Matt, you are mean.

Old times when Matt used to wear badass shirts and dyes his beard

"If we take it to its logical conclusion. . ." is another way of saying "So, yada yada. . ."

Single cells are extraordinarily complex. Evolution is not necessarily about simpler forms leading to more complex, but rather what adaptations allow an organism to best survive an ecological niche. As single cell life forms came to fill the Earth, complexity arose between these forms that gave certain ones an advantage to survive a particular environment. The more competitive survival became the more niches were formed. This is the beauty of evolution. Could a single God create the countless environmental niches that exist? If a God were indeed that imaginative then how could he screw up so badly when forming humans such that they couldn’t obey a simple rule, not to eat of a particular fruit. Allegedly this one act led to thousands of years of unimaginable suffering for humanity . Why couldn’t God have made humans right so they didn’t need God to sacrifice his son to set things right again between themselves and with God? An act that hasn’t so far succeeded to making things on Earth better.

We need to teach creationism in school, even though he admits he has no idea if it’s true, because teaching what we’ve demonstrated is saying his indemonstrable claims are false? What can’t you say that about? Can’t teach medicine because that would mean alchemy and faith healing isn’t true.

If Chris can prove the talking snake, then I'm on board.

In order to teach creationism, the teacher(s) would have to cite their source. If they cited the Old Testament, how do you think Muslim parents would react? Or, if the Quran was cited, how do you think Christian and Jewish parents would react?

"If life came from non-life, we would see life popping up all around us".... I'll respond to that, if you can provide an answer to "If a god was uncaused, why don't we see other uncaused gods popping up all around us? It doesn't need any cause, so there should be other uncaused gods popping up everywhere we look."

Life took billions of years, but then earth is only six thousand years old

Imagine the arguments in a classrooms if this were to be taught? Students and teachers alike would be thrown out of schools. I guess that's one way to ditch class. LMFAO! 🤣😂

So if god is the creator shouldnt we be seeing new creations from him?

I think creationism should be taught in schools. Not in the science class though. It should be put where it belongs and should be taught alongside other mythology like the Roman and Greek gods are.

Why it it SO important to these Christians that other people believe creation??

Humans are no more complex than any other mammal. I don't get this obsession with complexity.

How we know that a rain is not killing off that new life that is trying to start today.

Science in classrooms teaches facts that we know. We don't teach assumptions or guesswork. It's a pathetic excuse to try and get creationism (and I assume eventually the christian version of creationism) in classrooms.

There must be something in the water in Grand Rapids.....LOL.

By his logic, there would be NO boundaries as to what could be a possibility... universe farting pixies, unicorn cyclops universe creators.... there would be no reason to exclude ANYTHING.

Creationist myths from all culture should in fact be taught in school, but only as myths.

If you’re going to allow the teaching of Creationism in science lessons, you may as well allow for the teaching of every other creation myth also. Why only allow for the Christian narrative?

Science classes teach science. Creationism is not science. Ergo, creationism doesn't belong in a science class. QED

Basically then, assertions without thought for the assertion.

Looking at the date this aired, and the way this guy thinks/argues, I'd wager his position has not changed one iota.

Can I teach the anatomy of Unicorns to a biology class. What particular creationist model would Chris like to teach? As I am pretty sure different cultures have developed their own creationist story. The Greeks, Norse, Australian indigenous , Ancient Egyptians, Hindu etc.

According to this guy when a beaver builds a dam it's nature. But when a human does it, it's "artificial" or "unnatural".

From the internet... "the species T. oblanceolata to have a record-breaking genome size of 160.45 Gbp... For comparison, the human genome contains about 3.1 Gbp" T. oblanceolata is more "complex" than humans. Bow down.

we teach 5+5=10 so as a point of balance why not teach 5+5= 67 ?

Having thought of this, it might be a GREAT idea to teach "Creationism" in Science class. Why? Because it would force people to do something so few believers do = READ the bibles and all the other claimed "Holy" books! That alone would turn most believers into Atheists! GREAT!!! Welcome to Reality!! Reading the bibles is what Freed me from that crap. Soon after, religions would then DEMAND their gods STOP being taught in Public Schools.

Chris is a Frankenstein monster believer

Algae has been around for ~4 billion years. It's very simple to us, but it's very sophisticated compared to simple early things that might not even be called cells yet. Those earliest forms wouldn't stand a chance for a moment in the modern world of more efficient or effective critters. The things people have made, are artificial housings, that selectively take in something and make energy, and release other things. Not at all a simple cellular wall, nothing at all that can reproduce itself. He's lying by repeating the phrase that humans have created life. They misconstrue things and make things up and in the moment nobody can correct them, so they act like they've made a good point. Later examination turns out that they lied Aron Ra says it's named after a creationist apologist named Gish, the "Gish Gallop" where they rattle off more lies of this sort in a minute than you could take an hour to explain how badly wrong they are.

It is very possible that early life couldn't form in the presence of oxygen, a very reactive element that didn't exist in the atmosphere until plants started making it.