The Darwin Day Lecture 2016, with Jerry Coyne | Evolution and atheism: best friends forever? 

Jerry starts at 8:45.

That was one of the finest Theist/Atheist lectures I have ever heard.

Its so pity that such brilliant guys like him has to take time to still deal such subjects. Thanks for his time, i hope it helps sleepers to wake up

I agree with Coyne. Anybody who thinks that science and region are compatible does not know enough about one or either of them.

A brilliant lecture, very informative and a really enjoyable experience. Prof Coyne was also a very nice bloke and signed two of my books. Just a shame Prof.Dawkins was not well enough to attend.

Wonderful talk! I like when Jerry speaks undiplomatically on these topics, especially the illusion of free will.

This is one of the best lectures I’ve watched … wonderful 👍👍👍👍

The conclusion of this lecture tells you everything you need to understand about the marriage of politics and religion. One specific example is the union of the American Republican Party with the religious right. Why do they fight so hard to keep evolution out of schools, and employ so many overt and covert methods to put religion in? Because those who have learned to think critically eventually REJECT religious beliefs. I am happy to include myself among that number.

wonderful - thank you so much for posting!

Fantastic talk! Thank you very much for posting. Jerry's explanations are so clear. Even if you don't agree on the factors that elevate religion, building a better society is never a bad thing.

Prof Cloyne is a very clear speaker, and I enjoyed his lecture very much.

This is my favorite Coyne lecture so far. Thanks for sharing!!!

Isn't it clear that humans created the concept of god? That there were many gods and geography had a lot to do with what religion/cult you were indoctrinated into? One question for all believers - What did they know two thousand years ago that we don't know now?

Excellent lecture, and Jerry signed my original copy of WEIT too!

Very good talk, Jerry really cuts through the bull.

Great lecture, Watched all of it

I think it would be great if someone would do a lecture on Human Evolution alone. Just so the public is more clear on the subject - many people are confused about how it works.

Love these lectures, and Coyne's books.

Great talk. This guy is even better than Dawkins!

Great talk !

We have surely all noticed, as has Jerry, that the poorest countries are the most religious. I also notice that in these countries religion is harshest, more subjugative, more backward....driving this inability to rise out of poverty. It certainly looks deliberate to me...religion driving poverty, driving misery and fear which in turn feeds religious power. It's time this was argued in the UN.

Great! Informative lecture on Evolution's educative to be humanist.

Great talk, thanks for uploading

Science doesn't need to have a dialogue with theists, because the dialogue is already over: science was right, theism was wrong, end of dialogue. [Now I've grown, I resend the above statement. Jesus Christ is Lord!]

thank you professor Cone

brilliant guy great lecture and a cool dude imagine if everyone in America held his views we would be soo much better off.

Special events should have a special thank you. Thank you from SBM.

This is a great lecture. Sapolsky lectures on religion rock

Great lecture.

Good lecture

For someone in love, it's almost impossible to think, that the loved one has got his special position in one's brain only by chance and it could well be another person. But from a rational point of view, it's undeniable. I think a similar story is happening in a religious brain.

Happy Birthday!

Choose Your Own Purpose Everybody gets to choose their own purpose and change it as needed. The universe as a whole does not have a purpose any more than a mountain has a purpose. Asking what is the purpose of the universe is the same asking Why did god create the universe? What did he plan to use it for? If there is no god to have the purpose, there can be no universal purpose. So stop expecting science to answer meaningless questions like What is the purpose of the universe?

Thanks

Love Faith vs Fact (might be better than his Why Evolution is True) phenomenal speaker/author.

"Almost doubled, going from 9 to 19%" Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

What a amazing lecture. It completely captured me.

Might be time to stage an intervention on the US.

I like Jerry.

Ah, that pun at the end of the presentation!

37:50 i've always thought that having to find purpose is purpose itself. it would interest me to know if secualr countries are more or less creative in the arts than relgious countries.

Starts at 8:40 btw. Charming introduction but... yeah.

A well structured talk. I think the speaker hit on the key point when he said something along the lines of ‘due to education systems, by the time many people reach cognitive maturity they may already have been indoctrinated into whatever is the most common belief system of the community’. Christmas is used very effectively in the UK to introduce children into believing in something “magical”. I wonder how that effects peoples log term psychology?. Is there such a thing as a nice lie?.Of course children lap it up because they trust the people they look up to. And many of the Adults see no harm in a fantasy preached as a truth because the lucky children love nice story’s. However, if an adult was to manipulate another adult into believing something that they themselves knew to be false, a good moral society would judge that as fundamentally a wrong thing to do (even if the preachers are under the illusion of meaning well, it will only end in disappointment). Faith schools ( that teach religion as fact and/or schools that do not speak about evolution (my Daughter is 7 (and ¾), the Christian based school she attends have never mentioned evolution according to what she tells me) . These and many other schools do not begin by teaching children how to think for themselves as independent humans. They do not successfully encourage logical thinking, as being rational will lead to questioning the faith of the school/teachers. Young children can develop understanding of even complex subjects like ecology if given the cognitive tools to do so. They should be freed from the mental imprisonment of the indoctrinations of good and evil ,heaven and hell, good children get presents from father Christ-mass. (wealthy people whom give their children more presents then must be more “good”, maybe that’s how some less wealthy children interpret this delusion in our incredibly unequal societys). Faith schools begin by wishing to indoctrinate children into their belief (quite often using simple story’s with religious narratives/undertones). Any logical based subject’s are then taught around this faith, for some young people their minds are compartmentalised for life (logic for some things/belief for others). Though for some of the lucky ones (as logic removes fear) logic begins to erode away the deep seated indoctrination they were subjective too when naive. The indoctrinated teaching others how they were themselves indoctrinated. Of course indoctrinated people (Indoctrination is not the same as immoral as people can be indoctrinated to be kind) won’t see themselves as indoctrinated, they think they have freely made the choice themselves, though, strange how many misunderstand the basics of the theory of evolution whilst making ill-informed arguments against it. Like they have something preventing them learning all the evidenced that supports evolution. There are fundamental reason why we have a large percentage of adults in society whom are ecologically/evolutionary blind( ignorant ). Led by voted in leaders, blind voting for the blind. Self evidently (if you study subjects related to the self like biology and evolution) ,the evidence for evolution and ecology etc, is all around them and within them (even in cities where much of the ecological functions have long been removed, life is interconnected and microscopic organisms dominate. Indoctrination, inadequate education systems (including media) and lack of parental teaching that foster love and care for other animals (as the adults/parents don’t care that much for other animals in general. Unless their on dead on a plate) , are the fundamental reason why it continues to be so hard to move society forward on time critical issues such as biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, pollution & the combined effects these are having on accelerating anthropogenic climate change. Of course the denial of scientific evidence doesn’t just come from religion. It also comes from a large majority of Agnostics whom (judging by the things their more interested in) have not developed a level of conscious awareness of themselves & enviroment to understand that they are animals living in an ecosystem, on which they are dependent for their very survival. I urge anyone whom is lucky enough to care to watch the film Racing Extinction & please encourages other to watch it also. racingextinction.com/the-film/#where-to-see-itA. This film captures many of the severe environmental factors facing our species and what people working together can do about them. Debate is Good. But we must somehow find a way to start a movement to slow down and hopefully reverse the human trend of destruction of life . It's already too late for many species driven to extinction due to habitat loss and human persecution. If these trends continue we are edging towards population crashers within some of the key stone animals groups. If Ocean acidification continues to rise many of the plankton species will not be able to survive. This will begin the extinction cascade effect that many ecologists fear is fast approaching. When the microscopic organisms in the oceans and on land begin to disappear, it won't be long before the rest of the food chain begins to collapse. Basic ecology, that the people whom have the majority of power and the majority the UK voters, do not seem to be too concerned about. Maybe because they don’t understand basic ecology or are generally unaware that they are living in an ecosystem ( Citys do provide an illusionary separation from the web of life) .

People with health and justice don't need to pray for it. But greedy people will never stop!

what do people like tour and meyers think they will find? a trademark symbol?

Poll is short for "creative truth". Where you take the very well crafted data, interpret it in the way you see fit and sell it as cause-effect towards what you want this data to "prove". Funny how things works exactly the same in the almost all branches of science.

woww lovely British and American accent.

Wish this had subtitles

Que bueno sería que estuviera en español.

8:30 for Jerry Coyne

Hey Jerry Coyne! You said in 2011 that epigenetics is not dangerous to the theory of evolution because it only passes for two or three generations. . In 2014, it was found to pass adaptations for HUNDREDS of generations. I take it that now evolutionary theory is dead in the water. Am I right? You inferred in 2011 it would be the case.

Jerry Coyne, referring to the cover of his book “Why Evolution is True” which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron. The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three. Apparently the blur heron is the only known animal in this evolutionary tree sleight of hand. Surely, of all the supposed known trees of life, Jerry could come up with one of more certainty. So much for the observable and testable science of microbe to man evolution.

Yes, I agree, the most destructive aspect of religious belief systems is the tendency to proscribe and penalise non practitioners and none believers. In effect to dehumanise those they see as adversaries. I would contend that you can be a political and philosophical adversary without becoming an enemy to those of another persuasion. But that territory only tends to open up historically and socially when humanism is on the winning side and religion on the losing side. The correlation between widespread wellbeing and reduction in religiosity is very persuasive. That reality ought to connect affluent societies with awareness that they have a very real interest in the improvement of living conditions worldwide, rather than exclusively or merely their own countries self interest. I would also say that the practice of humanism is contagious. I have often found people to be incredulous when I assert I am an atheist, because they associate that with callous indifference to others well being. I test as high on empathy, a good listener, patient and open minded. They have learnt to associate atheism with callousness and insensitivity. I do not buy the behaviourist view of motivation. There is such a thing as intrinsic reward in seeking to avoid harm, hurt feelings or shock in others. Generally referred to as self esteem. We are a social animal, but destructive systems and societies undermine that mutual respect and pursuit of mutual wellbeing, in effect suffocating humanistic attitudes and behaviour. I have had the salutary experience of knowing there are individuals who are incapable of empathy apparently genetically lacking that attribute and both destructive and intentionally deceptive towards others. I consider that a refutation of behaviourism. It would need a whole treatise to explain that adequately.....

Gould wasn't the first with NOMA. There's a saying attributed to Galileo: "The bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

Not meaning any offence to the speaker at the beginning, but doesn't he sound and look like David Icke a bit?!?!

8.5 minutes for the Richard Dawkins impersonator to leave and Jerry to come on! Only kidding Steve! ;-)

I write from Spain, which is a non-denominational state that, however, has maintained agreements with the Catholic Church since 1979 on legal, educational and economic matters for which thousands of priests, bishops and professors of religion have enjoyed fixed salaries. Until 2007, the Catholic Church was financed directly through the general state budget. Currently the State facilitates, through the annual income tax return, that citizens allocate 7% of taxes to the support of the Catholic Church and not to social purposes of general interest. In 2020, the Church collected in this way the amount of 280 million euros and maintains the privilege of being exempt from paying the IBI for its real estate: temples, monasteries, seminaries, universities, etc. In 2013, the subject of religion (Catholic) became compulsory - evaluable. With the recent Education Law of 2020, schools will have the obligation to offer it, but it will be voluntary for students. All this happens in a country where not even 10% of the citizens go to Mass. The problem with religion is that, like a virus, it "installs" in people's minds and parasitizes them without them being aware. The coronavirus pandemic ravages the world. A majority of the epidemiologists consulted publicly declare the need to implement more effective protection measures and advise that the Christmas holidays should not be celebrated with more people than those with whom one usually lives. However, a majority part of society ignores these warnings and they gather beyond the measures proposed by these scientists. Many celebrate the supposed date of the birth of a child who is God, who was born from the union of a virgin with the Holy Spirit, who performed a good number of miracles during his life, and who was resurrected ascending to heaven. Many others do not celebrate it exactly for these reasons but for the "tradition" or custom of celebrating these holidays. On January 10, 2021, official data showed the figure of 69,381 positives compared to the 2,072 positives recorded on December 22, just before these holidays.

is there more questions to come or was 3 enough? great talk.

how did he come out with 12.250 at 58:41 ???

1:18:49 I don't have a problem with amazement, wonder, and gratitude for living and experiencing life as such "spirituality" movement does but, I do have a problem when people say your spirit, aura, chakra, personal energy or anything supernatural is a cause of something or is reason to act in some manner. That is just manipulation of others. People should instead be informed of their physiology the reptilian mind AKA the Parasympathetic Nervous System and know how ones body performs based on the environment, social factors, what is consumed, and physical activity such as strength training, cardio training, stretching, meditation and breath work. They would realize that everything is natural there is no room for supernatural woo woo. It is sad that people thought that people with neurological disorders were possessed by demons not long ago and there are still some people who say that today.

Ina sentence like "You can't put God in a test tube..." God is presupposed as an existing entity. In all those statements you could replace "God" by "the flying spaghetti monster" or just another fantastic figure you like. "You can't put any fantastic figure in a test tube..." But you can do neuroscience with a person fantasizing about a fantastic figure.

Can you make subtitles appear?

So long as they’re not teaching their religion in the public schools I don’t really care what people believe. If someone’s religion is limited to unfalsifiable claims and doesn’t conflict with what we know about the physical world, I care even less. Insisting on philosophical materialism is a step too far.

Conclusion: *Religion leads to ignorance.*

Has any atheist society been selected for by Nature ? Or even: Has such a society ever been existed in human history?

I'm impressed Jerry that u can wiggle your ears

ليس من العدل انيحتفل بيوم مولد درون وينسا يوم جنون البقر It's not fair to celebrate Dron's birthday and forget mad cow day.

Jerry is a boy Rockefeller.

Darwin said let there be light and light was made. Not. Three phases, ideational, energy and force, and the gross physical. In the mind of God all this would take place at once. At the physical level evolution takes place over eons to the pattern of the divine template. Both are true God gave the blueprint and it evolved from there.

The thing that is often missed here is that faith can be used to explain anything. If evidence is found against a god then it is simply a test of the believer's faith. The stronger the evidence the greater the test. The same applies to Humanism and its 'beliefs'. It is also perhaps quite illuminating that this chap wishes the audience to laugh at believers. This is tempting but should be avoided as it only creates division and strengthens resistance to enlightenment.

34:49 So true. There is a Mormon scripture which begins something like "The natural man is an enemy of God..." and then says to submit to God. Yet they exploit the natural man and don't realize that everything is natural. 36:03 No meaning just means we create meaning like we do for a game. Which is why I like to say that life is a collection of games. Eat that chocolate Forest Gump.

The host seems like a great guy but I don’t see any resemblance of Richard Dawkins in him. Maybe it was years ago and their hairs and glasses were more similar or something but even then I don’t see it. Nevertheless they are funny stories.

There are no vestigial organs. Dan

I'm not incest. I didn't come from one set of grandparents.

Life is chemical? What about forces don’t they play a role? The strong, neutral and weak forces plus electromagnetism and magnetism. Explain magnetism and then we can take you seriously.

I need a title! (croatian). Salut!

I would like to see some of the 'science' in the theory of evolution. Thus far, all I have seen is the over-extrapolation of observable data by Darwin, and an elaborate series of just-so stories to make it appear his over-extrapolation is real science. Dan

Jerry, according to David Carrier, Jesus probably never existed! (You talked about finding bones of Jesus at around 30)

If chance is the father all flesh then sniper kills 18, and bomber kills 20 It is man worshiping his maker.

At 1:09:00 That's another reason they are afraid of Bernie Sanders

More people would be interested in science if so many scientists who are atheists, no problem with that, are so hostile to religion so that gets a backlash.

People are religious because they have no agency to be otherwise.

If we do not have a soul or spirit why isn’t murder ok. He is only going thru the same old debunking as all the others. Did I hear him say you were going to make society better. Tha

I like Jerry Coyne. He tells it like it is. Here is a great quote from him. "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27 So spot on! So many evolutionists claim that all the evidence points to microbe to man evolution. Jerry tells it like it is. He wrote a book called "Why Evolution is True". of faith. Seeing and Believing The New Republic February 4 2009 p.41. The book jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. But Jerry then makes this note: “We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three.” (Referring to the cover of his book which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) Now don't you think that if there was some hard evidence of dinosaur to bird evolution he would put that on the book cover? Of course he would! But there is no evidence of any ancestor of dinosaurs and there is no evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. And Jerry clearly acknowledges that fact. I have a much better explanation. God create everything in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago. Including the dinosaurs and the birds. Both created by God. No evolution required. And then 2020 years ago God sent his Son to Earth as a Man to die on a cross to save us. All you have to do to be saved is to accept in your heart what Jesus did for you.

Not a bad society? 20 million africans enslaved and killed, 3 million vietnamese, 2 million cambodians, 2 nuclear bomba detonated un Japan,1.5 million iraquíes, abandon Afganistán after a20 year invasión, etc And he doesn't think America could be categorized as a bad society.

Romans 1 21,22 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they become futile in there thinking, and there foolish heart's were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became FOOL'S. So the more people scratch and claw there way out of believing in God, the more FOOLISHNESS like Darwinism we can expect to see. Science points to God ever time. Go with Truth, Go with God.

Only problem with the picture example the first female would be an African. Not Karen

A

You took out my comments about Islam. He said no,one could answere. I did .They give no forgiveness.

Jerry: "Would you conclude that Catholicism and paedophilia are compatible with one another?" Yep.

If abiogenesis isn't possible then none of the other aspects of the evolutionary origin theory are valid. It always surprises me that people would take a stance that all of science backs Charles Darwin's theory when it is quite the opposite. If a challenge to this theory offends you then you are the same as someone who believes in God who refuses to look at the counter argument. To believe in evolution today takes more faith than believing in God. Also, it's rather validating for Christians that they talk about the Bible and Christianity at these conferences and in the comments rather than the Quran, Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Tripitakas, etc... Come on people. Be what you claim to be, be smart. Here's a letter written by a scientist who easily dwarfs these gentlemen in credentials, achievement and understanding. Biology is built on chemistry. Brave enough to have your faith challenged? inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

So every human being that now exists comes from adam and eve. Where do the Native America each north and south, the Aborigial Australian, the Mongol, Inuit, dark colored African, Chinese,. . . come from? In less than 4600 years. I apologize for maybe misnaming some group of people, no bad intentions.

There are vestigial organs, systems and structures. The process is always happening. Creationists have a pretence that this is not so. But it is just pretence. A lie.

Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, quotes: "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27 (Note: Phrenology is predicting the future by reading of bumps on a head) "Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all." Nature August 31 2006 p.984 (Note: Evolution produces nothing of use.) "We'll never be able to reconstruct how selection created everything -- evolution happened before we were on the scene, and some things will always be unknown." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.137 (Note there is no observable and testable science) "These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.208 (note: Despite the fact there is no science supporting Darwinism, you must believe.) (Referring to the cover of Jerry Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”, which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) Disclaimer: "The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three. (Note: the book starts with deception, but you can believe the rest of it.)

The basis of Darwinism is "...and from the Primordial soup the fist simple celled life appeared..." - the basic problem with this is: there is no such thing as a simple cell. A cell is a fractal of the Universe - immensely complex - small, but staggeringly complex

Nine long boring minutes of introduction. What is wrong with those people? Do they think that we want to hear THEM?

Once upon a time, we all believed in creation. Then came the rise in secular humanism energized by the laziness of Christians to defend the truth against new "ideas" that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Then no longer did we all believe in creation, but many fell into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientific because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are now turning, and there is a rise in the force of creationism and the Intelligent Design movement that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of Darwinism doubters or disbelievers, that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media. Eugenie Scott has stated, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten." Evolution is disproved by millions of facts, such as the fact that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Atheists are obligated to explain how all things can exist if God does not exist. Their claim that God does not exist is in effect a statement that all that exists can come into being without God. The laws of nature about information have refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution. Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes. DNA possesses thousands of 3-dimensional information hierarchies directed to the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. Genetic information when read by the cell's machinery in one direction produces different information than when it is read by the cell's machinery in the other direction. This feature of design alone is so far superior to man's computer software that it is not currently possible for us to conceive how this could have been done while making all of it's information relevant and critical to the organism. It's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences across the entire molecule. It's sequences across the entire 7 ft. long molecule are organized to conform to linguistics laws which go beyond Zipf's law of Linguistics. It contains codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule. A recent discovery is that there is a code which lies upon codes for proteins, sharing it's base pairs, and regulates how to express those sequences for proteins. If we liken the mechanical functions of the protein machines of the cell as it interacts with DNA, then the operations mirror the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, syntax, and grammar, and punctuation. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations which possess "if" and "when" statements, just like computer programs. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are all immaterial nature has no potential to produce them. They are products only producible by a mind. During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical light switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it. If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept. Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history. Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence. See him dicuss his conversion: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SNkxpTIbCIw.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MbKsIAib5YM.html

QUR'ANIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION VS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (1) The theory of evolution asserts that living things are not part of creation or intelligent design, but a coincidental causes and natural process. However, this " theory of Evolution by natural selection " gave rise to doubts from the very beginning. 1- What were the " natural and coincidental variations " referred to by Darwin ? How could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species ? 2- Darwin asserted that " living beings evolved gradually". In this çase, there should have lived millions of " transitional forms". Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought this problem, and eventually arrived at this conclusion that " further research would provide these fossils." 3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes , ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing. H.S.Lipson, a British physicist makes the following comments about these " difficulties " of Darwin's: " On reading ' The Origin of Species ' I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be ; the chapter entitled " Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (1) However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of Origin of Life : The theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organism, had been widely accepted. Even in the period of Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. A corner stone of the Theory of Evolution was disapproved by Louis Pasture. In his lecture at the Sorbbone in 1864. He said: " Never will be the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow srtuck by this simple experiment." (2) However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidently faced an even greater impasse. The problem of Genetic : Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance.Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false ground.Darwin assumed that : Naturaĺ selection was the " mechanism of Evolution." He was unable to explain how would " useful traits" be selected and transmitted to the next geneation? At this point, he embraced the Lamarckan theory, that is " the inheritance of acquired traits". However, Lamarck's thesis was disapproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of species occurs. This was a serious deadend for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of " useful traits " on Lamarck. Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. Mendel was in favour of the orthodox doctrine of special creation. (1) H.S. Lipson, " A Physicit's view of Darwin's theory", Evolutio Trends in Plants, vol.2, No, 1988, p.6 (2) Sidney Fox, Klause Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p.4. Continue:--

Jerry Coyne (in Why Evolution is True), says animals “seem beautifully designed to fit their environments" (isn't this what the creationists have been saying all along?! Why do we insult them when they're the same?) He also states, “we have fossil evidence of only 0.1% to 1% of all species-hardly a good sample of the history of life!” Not enough fossils? Isn't this what creationists been saying all along?

Atheists care about what is true. Christians care about what provides emotional comfort. Don't knock religion till you try it. It's fun.