'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:13 am

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3393

I have obtained a copy of the above DVD and here are my thoughts on it.

The film mostly talks about the debate in general, rather than particular scientific evidence and how those on both sides of the debate may have interpreted such evidence.

With five eloquent YECs against two 'normal' scientists, there's no way this film can offer an even-handed presentation of the relevant issues.

Much of the time the film is YEC propaganda and a certain kind of 'Bible thumping' eg because there's a creator God evolution 'must' be false and a key reason it is false is that evolutionists assume that the material is all that there is.

As soon as Myers has spoken (he is not obviously unfairly edited) you get Ham and Purdom in succession trying to rubbish what he said eg about possible chemical evolution of the first cells.

You get Ham proclaiming that scientists talk about millions of years as factual because they 'want' evolution. A total distortion of the history of scientific discovery.

Purdom claims that natural selection and mutations cannot produce anything additional (in terms of genetics or morphology) - a favourite piece of YEC misinformation. She also claims that people deny design (meaning intent/planning/intelligence as well as complexity seen within life) because they don't want responsibility to a creator.

Ham tries to rubbish Eugenie Scott by implying that because she is a committed atheist she must abuse the scientific method in the same sort of biased manner that YECs do (who have certain inflexible beliefs about the past despite the scientific evidence available to us and actually pretend that the sum of the evidence is on their side not that of mainstream scientists).

Todd Cantelon is obviously biased - accusing evolutionists of believing in 'happenstance' and of 'defying' the evidence (there's no evidence that a. young Earth creationism is sound science and also b. evolution is disproven; some might argue that fine-tuning and the complexity of life could point to a god/invisible higher intelligence).

The sound quality is poor in some of the interviews that were recorded in the Creation Museum, as recorded animal noises are also heard in the background.

I would assume that Myers (wearing a crocoduck tie) and Winsor agreed to take part because otherwise the film might have featured nothing but young Earth creationists discussing in a rather dogmatic fashion the 'origins of the universe debate'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:24 am

I've also attempted to post this review at Amazon.com.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:56 pm

Thanks for suffering that, Ashley. Is it possible to tell whether Myers was specifically (and knowingly) recorded for the DVD or his contribution was just cut from some other source?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:51 pm

I think he probably contributed to THIS film willingly (if not I suspect that he would have blogged about it - as I notified him by email of Ken Ham endorsing the film - along the lines of how he condemned Ray Comfort over that other recent film). That said, Todd Cantelon supposedly interviewed all seven scientists/apologists but - for understandable reasons - you don't hear his actual questions just the answers provided.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby cathy » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:26 am

You get Ham proclaiming that scientists talk about millions of years as factual because they 'want' evolution.

Yet no YEC ever explains WHY they would 'want' evolution. Evolution just is, thats like saying they believe things orbit because they 'want' gravity. There is no emotional, anti spiritual or any other reason to 'want' evolution. Just because Dawkins claims atheism needs evolution doesn't mean its true. There are atheists who know sweet FA about evolution and Christians who know about and happiliy accept all the evidence for evolution.

I'm curious as to why nobody has ever tackled them on this 'want' piece of bullshit. It is how we came to be, want doesn't enter into it.

She also claims that people deny design (meaning intent/planning/intelligence as well as complexity seen within life) because they don't want responsibility to a creator.


Again this is nonsensical from YECs. Why would people not want responsibility to a creator? Why does she not accept it is her particularly dishonest version of design that believers deny. How can she make this comment in the face of the numerous nasty AiG articles she participates in about compromising Christians who clearly deny her version of design yet seem to have taken on board a responsibility to a creator.

I bet that is not tackled on the dvd either. What evidence is she presenting that people only deny design because they don't want responsiblity to a creator? What about Ken Miller or Francis Collins for starters.

Well done Ashley for suffering this.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:41 pm

cathy wrote:

I bet that is not tackled on the dvd either. What evidence is she presenting that people only deny design because they don't want responsiblity to a creator? What about Ken Miller or Francis Collins for starters.

Well done Ashley for suffering this.



I'm coming to the conclusion that all this creationist crapola coming out of the USA is because Americans are basically scared rigid by religion. Questioing religion undermines much more than just their religious position/ For many Americans, the USA is seen as a nation somehow favoured by God and with a constitution somehow gudied by God#s hand, like the Bible. Criticising their religion is, well, a serious threat and absoultely evil because it is "Un-American" and will lead to the distruction of the USA. It doesn't help that religion is big business in the USA.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: 'Origins of the Universe; the Great Debate' - REVIEW

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:47 pm

[quote="cathy"

I'm curious as to why nobody has ever tackled them on this 'want' piece of bullshit. It is how we came to be, want doesn't enter into it.

[/quote]

I've frequently seen the circular reasoning from fundies that as we were all made in the image of God we all basically believe in God and therefoe rejecting their beliefs is, er, "unnatural", deliberate and evil.

The problem in dealing with them is basically the same as "debating" with US right wing nut jobs. It's about paranoid fear of uncertainty.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests