No thanks doj all due respect. Mo videos. Tell me what YOU know.
Alright. That video was about scientists being fired and losing grant money for proposing scientifically valid ideas. If you don't believe that this happens, you should back that up with facts.
There is no point in saying that any evidence or data has been suppressed when there is no data.
What about this is worth discussing if "creationism" has not so much as one data point on a graph? Which it does not!
Show me valid data to back creationism and i will show you that you are on your way to a Nobel.
if you cant show me any this is a waste of time.
Creationism has a lot of data. It is often the logical explanation. (Note: It has nothing to do with God, just that we explain a phenomenon as created as opposed to random, like a Pyramid.)
The bacterial flagellum is an example of an irreducibly complex system. Such irreducibly complex systems could not have arisen by a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process. That is just the logical explanation of a observed phenomenon. It has nothing to do with God.
The bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles.
Some bacteria boast a marvelous swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex cells. In 1973 it was discovered that some bacteria swim by rotating their flagella. So the bacterial flagellum acts as a rotary propeller -- in contrast to the cilium, which acts more like an oar.
Biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex system The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation.
Such irreducibly complex systems were ultimately the result of intelligent design.
It has nothing to do with God.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin
Darwinism is a 150 year old theory, like any other.
Some scientists will argue that "intelligent design" is not a purely naturalistic or materialistic explanation of the origin of biological information and hence is not a valid scientific explanation. Often hidden within this argument is the philosophical or theological assumption that God (or any other intelligent agent) did not play any active, direct, or discernible role in the creation of any biological system. This assumption requires that all genetic information must have arisen on a totally random and/or gradual step-by-step basis. It follows that nature must be continuous and natural history must be represented by a tree of life. Constrained by naturalism, the hypothesis of common ancestry must be accepted axiomatically and hence is not subject to scientific falsification.
Ironically, scientists are more constrained under a paradigm of naturalism than they are under a paradigm of intelligent design. Intelligent design of the universe may have included the creation of natural laws and initial conditions sufficient to allow the evolution of a single tree of life on earth. Intelligent design may also have included punctuations throughout natural history, direct acts of creation or the infusion of new genetic information, which resulted in natural discontinuities. Examples of such natural discontinuities might include the origin of life, the origin of the higher taxa (e.g. the origin of most of the major phyla in the Cambrian explosion), or the origin of irreducibly complex systems. If natural discontinuities exist, natural history would be more accurately modeled as a forest of life. The important point is that a paradigm of intelligent design can accommodate either a tree or forest of life as well as the existence of processes that either produce or prevent major evolutionary change. Unlike the paradigm of naturalism, however, intelligent design requires that scientists develop testable hypotheses to determine which model best fits the data.
The goal of science is to most accurately describe and model the Cosmos. While there may be circumstantial evidence to support either a continuous or discontinuous model of life, it is vitally important to recognize how one's starting assumptions affect one's conclusions. Beginning either with the assumption of intelligent design or philosophical agnosticism (both of which allow the Cosmos to be either continuous or discontinuous) clearly gives the scientist greater freedom of thought than exists within a purely naturalistic paradigm. Along with that freedom comes the responsibility to test what philosophical naturalists simply assume.
