4thought.tv

Mr Perry. Congratulations on your excellent A level results.
Might I suggest you try teaching Creationism to a room full of teenagers.
Some will point out the world is 4.5 Billion Years old, and that Dinosaurs died out perhaps 65 Million Years before Homo Sapiens evolved (circa 200,000 years ago).
Alternatively do a degree in Geology or Astronomy.

Creationism doesn't adhere to any sort of scientific method or theory. There is no evidence whatsoever.

It is an underhanded method to try and disseminate religious thinking where it is not needed or wanted.

Saying that in your biology exams you give the answers that are expected rather than the answers you believe is exactly like saying that in your maths exams you give the answers that are expected rather than the answers you believe.

young man you will cringe when you look at this in 20 years time,trust me..

@00:44 I don't think this guy understands what logic is.

The reason it is not taught because there is no proof for it apart from a book with no physical merit. Also if you teach one faiths view as fact you need to teach all, whether that is christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and all of them. We need to seperate faith and science, science shows us what us what there is with facts and evidence, religion requires you to believe in no evidence. Religion is a personal choice, it is every individuals right to have one, it has no place in the science class room

Hi Sam - Interesting.....One small comment....perhaps it is not logical that because the Bible says that God created Man and land animals on the 6th day that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. Perhaps what is more logical is that the Bible is made up and you believe in a sad, ridiculous fantasy. Live your own life son and you will be a decent person.

Creationism is not taught in schools as it is not supported by any evidence. The fact there is even a debate about creationism saddens me greatly. Not only do you have to ignore a massive body of evidence but you then have to be so self absorbed you assume your christian creation story is correct at the expense of all other religions.

But the World was created by Vanimonem (Sp?).
Vanimonem was a Finnish warrior and poet.
And when he first cleared the forest, he left a tall tree for the eagle. And the eagle thanked him. And he left another tree for the cuckoo, and the cuckoo thanked him.

So along with Creationism, please also teach us about Vanimonem.

Tnx. :)

Unbelievable!!!! Give me one reason why an unscientific, unproven book of fantasy should be taught along side repeatable, demonstrable proof.... One reason, that's all I ask.

This is a person who thinks the Bible is moral and that the earth is around 1000 years old.
Glad to see people making a fool out of themselves still :)

Unbelievable - really, unfathomably stupid. Just hope that his last 'logical' connection between people trusting the rest of the bible because they have come to trust the 'science' of the bible gets turned inside out. If people come to see that the bible's science is all to human in its frailty and inconsistency, then the veil of religious ideas and dogma having originated with a cosmic deity will be seen for the spongy wish-making and tribe structuring double speak it really is.

Well done, Sam! It's very encouraging to me to see a bright young student who clearly has a great future in the sciences, and who is also a convinced creationist. Keep up the good work.

To take the bible as evidence that dinosaurs lived alongside humans is laughable. Saying that genesis happened because it was written in the bible is like saying vampires exist due to the Twilight saga or that thetans exist due to L.Ron Hubbards work. This young man should be ashamed of himself as a scientist to entertain the notion creationism should be taught in schools

Oh dear, I despair. This poor lad has confused religion and science. There is proof that man and dinosaurs were not on the earth at the same time as Sam believes - by carbon dating/fossils etc.
Creationism is not a scientific fact so should not be taught in schools. Evolution, on the other hand, should be taught as it is a scientific fact. The two should not be taught together - to sum up creationism is not based on fact or proven by science - in fact science disproves it.

Oh dear, I despair. This poor lad has confused religion and science. There is proof that man and dinosaurs were not on the earth at the same time as Sam believes - by carbon dating/fossils etc.
Creationism is not a scientific fact so should not be taught in schools. Evolution, on the other hand, should be taught as it is a scientific fact. The two should not be taught together - to sum up creationism is not based on fact or proven by science - in fact science disproves it.

I'm sorry, but he is wrong. In fact, he could not be more wrong. Science has proved that as a fact - we wouldn't teach that the Earth is flat, or the centre of the Universe, so why should creationism be exempt from this? The Church has preached that these statements were correct, but science has disproved all three examples! To say that humans lived with dinosaurs is absurd... He is obviously an intelligent young man, and it is ridiculous that in this day and age, people still believe in creationism. I understand that the Bible is a religious text and therefore important to many, but a majority of these people are not creationists and have accepted that the bible, specifically the old testiment, should not necessarily be taken literally. I am genuinely outraged by this!! It is time to realise that there is only a God of the Gaps, and that is all.

Unbelievable - really, unfathomably stupid. Just hope that his last 'logical' connection between people trusting the rest of the bible because they have come to trust the 'science' of the bible gets turned inside out. If people come to see that the bible's science is all to human in its frailty and inconsistency, then the veil of religious ideas and dogma having originated with a cosmic deity will be seen for the spongy wish-making and tribe structuring double speak it really is.

I do not accept this point of view as logically sound. When Sam talks about how logically humans and dinosaurs are the same age because according to the Bible it says that all land animals were made on the 6th day....what? I mean there is hard scientific proof that the dinosaurs are millions of years old, we know this because science has been able to put a date on bones, and they have been able to do the same with the oldest of homosapiens bones and they are considerably younger. I don't understand why, if there is a God, he would give humans a false trail to follow, why plant evidence that would turn you away from him? Unless God is not omni benevolent and enjoys watching humans make idiots of themselves over what some fundamentalists believe to be false proof or human tricks. There is just not enough proof to prove that there is a God and that the world and everything in it was created by God. I do not judge people on what religion they are, far from it, but it frustrates me when people over look the scientific truth, or what is more likely to be the truth, because it is easier to believe a book that no one is really sure who wrote it.

And well done on your A* in biology Sam. Really good work, even if you don't believe what you wrote, it is really impressive. I hope I do as well as that in my A levels (Philosophy and Ethics) :)

This guy is a genius! Why have our science teachers been lying to us all this time about dinosaurs living before humans? Yes, dinosaur remains are fossilised and human remains are not (minor details when you really think about it). I am sure Sam has a perfectly good explanation for this however!

After watching this film, I have decided to become a "Christian" scientist, and as such, I am now going to blindly believe everything I read in books and turn my back on so called "evidence". I am actually attending my first Christian science debate tomorrow. I haven't decided though whether to take the Hogwart's express there or fly by broomstick.

wow. so you've studied science for how many years and you still do not 'believe' in it?!? what do you plan on doing with it then?

you've had all the evidence possible put right in front of your face yet you choose to call it false and take the word of a 2000 year old document that has no evidence to back it up whatsoever

and at what point did you fail to pick up on the critical thinking skills that tend to come with it??

amazing

All that evidence, simply ignored.

Fair & objective science!? Creationism isn't taught in school simply because it has no scientific basis whatsoever by whatever name you wish to call it. If the extent of this guys idea of 'logical induction' is the example he gives as proof then I don't feel a need to point out its shortcomings.

The scientific method not only requires that you prove your assertions, but in the attempt to do so that you should actively try to disprove them. If you can't and, after attempting to replicate your results, nor can your peers then your assertions are said to be fact. I challenge anyone to apply this to creationism.... Should creationism be taught in schools? NO, absolutely not, it's utter nonsense!

OK. re my earlier post. My Finnish spelling is poor :(

It was _Väinämöinen_ who created the world. But he was a poet and a warrior.

An A* in Biology? Standards have slipped dramatically.

Other than that it is not the main stream scientific view which had been tested again and again - why should we teach your version of creationism, there's loads of religions out their - why teach the dogma of the club you belong to?

Sam Perry admits to two things: first, he believes in creationism because of his uncritical reading of the Bible. This is to admit that his belief in creationism is religious and not scientific, and thus actually a reason not to teach creationism in school. Second, he wants people to believe in the Bible as if it were a science text, because he thinks this will lead people to believe in the morals of the Bible. This is an additional admission that his motives are religious and not scientific, so another reason not to teach creationism in school. Many faithful, like the Roman Catholic Church, have long claimed that the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific knowledge but is a reliable source of moral knowledge. This seems more logical and reasonable. Many people do not share the diverse (and sometimes conflicting) moral lessons of the Bible, but I do think we can all agree that it is as profound a work of moral literature as any other ever written. So let us teach it for what it is: a great work of literature, a work on wisdom and morality, and for some a path to salvation. Let's examine it as the religious text Mr. Perry says it is, and not as a science text.

Creationism should be taught in order to have "fair and objective science"? Science is as objective as the EVIDENCE that supports its theories, not by the number of competing theories in the mix, scientific or not.

You dont make science "objective and fair" by including religion, or religious dogma and doctrine along side it.

What you are saying is like you are asking "Have you considered that the fairies might have done it?" at a murder trial of your neighbour... I woulod reply "No, i have no considered the fairies as suspects, even if they existed". "Well, " you reply "how can you say your objective and fair if you dont consider all angles of the crime, fairies included?"

There is nothing to say to that, except be grateful someone like you is hopefully nothing to do with our justice system. To you that example might be laughable, but its actually NO LESS laughable than putting religious dogma and doctrine on a equal footing with scientific knowledge.

There is no science in the Bible Sam, thats why it requires faith and dogma (blind, yes blind, faith). Science is a process of testing and exploring this world and universe. Religion has no such thing. Religion only has revelation. No testing.

By all means have personal conviction in your faith, but dont try and give it credibility by linking it with science, UNLESS you also want it to be put under the same scrutiny that the scientific process demands.

Poor Sam. He boasts of his success in his science education but he has learnt nothing. Science is about questioning, objectivity, and ultimately evidence. There is no more evidence for creationism than there is for fairies at the bottom of the garden. Of course, as a scientist I can never be absolutely certain, but the evidence is pretty strong that God, and fairies, probably don't exist.

It's a travesty that drivel like this gets a voice. Advocates of this nonsense in the US are setting back science. Children in schools should be taught to question, because this is a fundamental part of science. There are lots of alternate versions of cosmology that can be taught, which have some basis in fact. If we decide to teach Christian creation myths in science classes, why not any other myth or any crackpot theory with no basis in fact? Or why not Hindu creation myths, which correspond much more closely to current cosmological observations, rather than being overwhelmingly contradicted by them?

Further, lets not make this a battle of science versus religion. Not all scientists want to pull down religion like Dawkins does. Science has limited knowledge of 'spiritual' matters. What it does, is build up our understanding of the physical world in a systematic and repeatable way. That man evolved from apes might be disputed, because it's a theory and we have yet to find an unbroken chain of fossil evidence that proves it. What can't be disputed is the age of the Earth, the fossil record in as much as we know that some species have evolved that weren't present in the distant past, the origin of the earth as the dust of supernovae, natural selection as it can be directly seen in the lab, etc.

Even the pope doesn't believe in a literal, biblical creation, so please channel 4 don't give this dangerous fringe a voice!

This poor poor lad probably still believes in Father Christmas. He says he knows that man and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time and that that god created the world from dust.
This goes against all scientific knowledge and one wonders what kind of an education he has had at school. It is so sad to hear him talk such rubbish when he is clearly interested in science.
Please can someone rescue this young man before it's too late

Wikipedia lists about 30 creation stories from around the world, from China to the tip of South America. Which includes Väinämöinen, the first man and incidentally, a Finn, according to Finnish sagas.

Mr Perry, why should only the creation story you believe in be the only one, and not the other 29?

Mr. Perry admits two things. First, that he reads the Bible uncritically. this is actually a reason NOT to teach creationism as if it were science. Second, that he hopes people will treat the Bible as if it were scientifically true because he hoped then people will accept it as morally true. Well, this suggests a real misunderstanding of science, which is not about "truth" but about interpreting available evidence in ways that raise new questions. But at least Mr. Perry is honest that his motives are religious. Many faithful, like the Roman Catholic Church, clearly view the Bible as a religious and not as a scientific text. Most can agree that it is a great (and complex) work of literature, and a source of great (and often conflicting) wisdom and moral values; some believe it is also a path to salvation. let's teach the Bible for what it really is, a remarkable collection of religious texts, and not a science text-book. Let's not misrepresent this great work.

Yes I do think that creationism should be taught in schools - but as an example of the difference between a 'faith' in a theory, as opposed to a 'scientific research' approach to producing a theory. The creationism approach is so obviously flawed from so many viewpoints that can be checked (eg with carbon dating). The current scientific viewpoint is subject to continuous refinement as our scientific approaches are improved, and are always in the process of evolution so that as time progresses we are extending our understanding and appreciation of the world around us.

Creationism as a theory has no place in education. It's over simplistic explanation of the world around us is laughable in the face of evolutionary and geomorphic evidence. The idea of humans living during the same period as dinosaurs is inconceivable. Creationism is only fueled by an egotistical desire of humans to feel of importance because the alternative would mean accepting the reality that we are merely a product of chance.

Creationism is a stupid belief, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, both valid beliefs - however i don't see the Flying spaghetti monster being taught in schools.

Sam - you are to be commended for making statements which I am sure would completely role not only the evolutionist scientists of this world but also a lot of those who have only ever been exposed to the evolutionist take on creation - after all they have had the monopoly in schools for quite some time

I watched this film with incredulity. It was an exceptional display of the arrogance of youth in a school-leaver who has proudly completed 3 science A-levels - but who has entirely failed to understand the meaning and methods of science. Sadly the hard-won insights and understanding of many generations of scientists since the Enlightenment have been wasted on Mr Scott Perry. He believes instead that he knows better, and that his nonsense about "Bible science" is a substitute for facts.

Well done son! All alternatives in a fair society should be made known. All objectors are not objective due to their minds refusing to have a conscience towards anything higher than themselves, and not subject to such; they can do what they like

this is incredible! why do people believe a 2000+ year old story?

Sam obviously believes that dinosaurs existed as he thinks that they walked with man. How can he explain that at twenty foot tall lizard doesn't get a mention in the bible?

Sure- teach creationism in school, but not as a science. Treat it in the same way as mythologhy and superstition to demonstrate how far we have come (through advances in science) since the Dark Ages. I would be very interested to hear from Sam how he developed his belief in creationism. I suspect that he has been indoctrinated by his parents.

my dear boy, i feet so very sorry for you. the world you can not see.
Creationism is a belief. two american count ruled that creationism should not be taught as science.
but much more then that, creationism cannot explain many facts of life.
why design pain, fear, poo, vestiges organs like the appendix (a small bomb in the human body that does NO good,) human with tails, whales with leg bones, and so on and on!
if the amswer is "that what god wants" please scientifcally demonstrate one the many gods existence.
Until that point, stay with the thankfully small number of closed minded Christian who believe adam and eve two boys, who fathers all humans!!!

I purchased New Scientist the other month because the front cover said "The First Days of Evolution - The fragile molecule that launched all life". But then inside, the article just says "it must have been this....", so Evolution itself includes some amount of faith.

Yet more proof that religion of any sort should be utterly removed from the education system. All these ideas about teaching creationism only underline the stupidity of humanity and its pathological desire by certain sectors to continue to breed hatred and intolerance masquerading as freedom of choice.

Thanks Sam for your willingness to talk about these matters. It is good that you set a high standard for yourself - this is needed to stop the critics treating you as ignorant and ill-informed. One of these days, people will come to realise that creationists are not anti-science in any way, but are standing in the traditions of the pioneers of science. These early scientists were all believers in God and saw their scholarly work as an act of worship and an opportunity to serve the communities in which they lived. We need more people like this working in the field of science in our own day!

I thought we taught facts to children the facts of life the facts of the world we live in from the evidence that we have to confirm that they are in fact a fact. There is nothing to confirm that creationism as religious people see it is a fact. Schools are not the place to teach ridiculous beliefs.

Techniques such as radioactive dating and sediment analysis, conclusively prove that dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old.

This is what we teach children as it is a fact. To believe that Noah built a boat 450ft long and 75ft wide and but 2 of every species on it Oh except for the dinosaurs who must have been given the wrong departure time/date, and left every other animal and human including innocent babies to die! Well whether it is true or not what a guy that god would be.

So you're willing to accept that we came from dust, which all we have in common is Carbon. However, you don't believe in evolution when we share over 98% of our DNA with our closest mammalian relatives and have direct evidence of the evolutionary process by the forced evolution of the domesticated dog and cat species. Yeah, that's reasonable. . .

According to the doctrine of last-Thursday-ism, the whole world come into being last Thursday together with all supposed memories of past events. It must be true because it says as much in this post. I suggest that instead of wasting time discussing whether Creationism, which is only a theory, should be taught, we should all lobby for the inclusion of the fact of last-Thursday-ism in the school curriculum.

Creationism is not science, does not follow the scientific method of observe, measure, theorise, model and then do it again. Young Earth Creationism is incompatible with the discoveries of biology, geology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.

With these sciences have created the modern world of IPhones, jet planes, internet and high powered computing. While the study of creationism has produced and will continue to produce precisely nothing only blighting the lives of those who get sucked into it.

God bless you Sam! Nothing in true science conficts with the Bible & when you know personally the one & only true God of the Bible, Jesus Christ,you can trust the Bible from Verse 1 of Genesis, because you know that NOTHING is too hard for Almighty God to do.In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth, In six literal 24 hr. days & rested on the 7th, it's where we get our 7 day week from & is confirmed throughout the Scriptures, with God even writing it twice on tablets of stone! The worldview of 'Evolution', taught in our schools, as fact, & is part of the atheistic agenda to turn people away from God & bring about the secular society. If creation were to be taught in schools as well as the 'LIE' of evolution, children & adults would be able to see the impossibility of the evolutionary theories, which change all the time, and instead of being indoctrinated with evolution in every subject, could make up their own minds about God, whose word changes not! As Sam said, they could then trust the Bible for it's morality & Spirituality & indeed salvation through Jesus Christ alone. They would then be able to see that we are not just 'lucky' apes, but that we are SPECIAL & made in God's image. We have been separated from God through the original sin of Adam and Jesus is the only way back to God, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14 v. 6) The earth is young; around 6,000 years old and the fossil records do not confirm billions of years, but, Biblical truth of the world-wide flood of Noah. Sam said quite rightly that dinosaurs have lived with man, there is recent secular history proving that; they weren't called dinosaurs in the Bible, as the word was only invented in 1841,by Sir Richard Owen, but the word dragon is used often. There are pictures & carvings of dragons world-wide, in many different cultures, proving that people have seen them & the larger ones have just become extinct, for varios reasons, just like other animals becoming extinct everyday. There are Christians in all the scientific fields who realise that the Bible, where it touches on scientific issues cannot be faulted and like Sam, are prepared to stick their necks out to declare the truth of God, rather than compromise & seek the approval of their peers or BIG funding. What a shame Sam had to compromise his faith and give wrong answers in order to pass the exams, my son experienced the same thing; what a truly SICK world we live in, where people have 'changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.(Romans 1 v. 25) God bless you Sam!

Sam Scott Perry says he believes humans were formed from dust "because that's what the Bible says," but then goes on to say he believes creationism should be taught in schools "in order to have fair and objective science." The Bible is not a science textbook. The scientific method doesn't rely on ancient texts but on a cyclical process of hypothesis and experiment, and as a science student he should know this. His film clip clearly demonstrates that creationism is not science, and it should not be taught in schools other than as an example of an unscientific, unfalsifiable idea.

The story of creation as depicted in the Bible has nothing to do with this physical world; the story of Genesis refers to the formation of the spiritual creation, i.e., the FIRST creation. The physical world we see about us came into existence much later as a subsequent creation. It was not formed, however, by any 'Big Bang' but through a process of radiation which emanates from God Himself.
All in creation is radiation - or perhaps some of you knowing ones would like to dispute this too? Furthermore it requires an intelligence to create intelligence. If any of you truly believe that all you survey came about by chance then I pity you. In a billion years from now chance could not 'create' a coffee mug and fill it with hot coffee complete with milk and one sugar! Could it? So why do you all deny what is so glaringly obvious to you? Are you all afraid? How can you believe in something you cannot even prove for yourselves? You lazily accept theories thought up by others without subjecting them to the most careful scrutiny, and thoughtlessly cast aside anything at all that might bring you closer to the truth. You cannot prove that your theories of evolution are correct yet you hold onto them for dear life.
The fact is we did not evolve from the ape as is unthinkingly believed. The separation of man from animal (the missing link) came when the first spirits incarnated into the the most highly developed animal at that time (which was already walking upright). It is a spirit core which animates the physical body and the spirit has its origin in Paradise - the spiritual realm of the FIRST creation. The animating core for an animal is 'soul' which has its origin in a different part of creation.
It is often forgotten that the Bible is referring to spiritual things and not earthly.
Creationism as taught by the various religions is wrong because it has never been understood by those who attempt to further it. The story of Genesis, however, is correct; it simply does not refer to this part of creation we are permitted to exist in!
In closing I need to emphasise that I have intentionally not attempted any detailed explanations with what I have written here.

Sam Scott Perry thinks creationism should be taught in schools - and I think he means within science - because if people can believe the Bible's account of origins they might believe in its morality too.

There is precisely NO evidence that dinosaurs (not obviously mentioned in Genesis) EVER lived alongside humans. Which on its own shows Genesis to be garbage as far as science is concerned - never mind Earth apparently being created before the Sun. Thus he appears to favour some sort of indoctrination that young Earth creationism (dinosaurs and humans both created on the planet's sixth day, assuming there's no gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, and presumably just thousands of years' ago) is a scientifically valid hypothesis alongside the theory of evolution. For someone who has studied science to advocate such a viewpoint suggests that his evangelical Christianity has taken OVER his science and that he wishes to misuse science education for evangelistic purposes. He made clear that he did not believe some of the correct answers to exam questions!

He used the phrase "fair and objective science". If he had had longer than 90 seconds would he have been able to show HOW current science teaching in the UK isn't objective or isn't 'fair' (whatever fair means when it comes to science)?

The Government are against creationism being taught as science within state schools, and so am I. Evangelism should not be based on lies or smears against scientists.

Don't be discouraged by the negative comments you are receiving, Sam. I am sure that you have given much thought to the so-called over-whelming evidence for evolution and you are far from alone in finding it unconvincing.

Stick to your guns, Sam, and remember what the late comedian Harry Secombe said about his time in WW2 'There were no atheists in the trenches'.
We are all a shadowy mass of moving electrons, having been on this planet for 'only the last second of a twelve month year' - creation is all around us, in ourselves ('What or who are we?'), the perfect balance - from the gases we breathe to the narrow spectrum of light and sound that we've been allocated. In a lifetime of science, I've had my own senses stirred with unexplainable incidents and many professional friends and acquaintances, in the forces, the police, pilots, scientists, et al, have come forward with their own life experiences and enigmas.
As it is written - 'Watch this space'.

This is a good example of why creationism should NOT be taught in schools.
If Mr Scott Perry truly believes what he is saying here, then his interpretation of the scientific process is sadly very wrong and to suggest that his creationist views should have weight along side science in schools is very, very wrong.
Sorry, one does not use 'logic' and 'the Bible' in the same contextual paragraph and maybe you Mr Scott Perry can 'trust the Bible's science' but please do not expect others to follow in your delusions.

I found this particularly useless as a means of furthering the debate. Sam Scott Perry stated he believed that the account in the Genesis is true. He didn’t say how it was true or why it is true. There is no place in our educational system for belief to be taught as fact. However creationists sometimes say there is an argument against the evolution theory and I would be interested in that and it is that which could be taught but at A level because it is at this level that opinion has to be backed up with evidence. The counter argument against the anti-evolutionist would also need to be taught. Evolution theory is often taught as fact and it is a theory, which I have been taught best fits the evidence. However I haven’t checked the evidence.

There is an article against evolution @ http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html
There is an article countering it @ http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FLockeResponse.htm

I believe creationist also believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old but I don’t know what scientific evidence they present for it.

Sam Scott Perry is mistaken if he thinks anyone can “Trust the Bible’s science”. The Bible is about theology and not about science or always about historical reality. It is about theological beliefs. Also aren’t there two creation myths in Genesis? It is possible for Christians to believe that God created the world and everything in it though the process of evolution or another process.

Therefore creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools as a scientific theory but alternative theories to evolution could be taught if the scientific evidence is there to support it.

Scott Perry mirroring Ken Ham. This is pitiful. I do hope this young man is in the minority because there would be no hope for humanity if this nonsense became a majority viewpoint among those taking A level biology.

How can you trust the Bible's science? You say that it is true, but what about its insistence that Bats are birds, or that whales are fish? If you cannot trust it on something as basic as animal taxonomy, you cannot trust it on other more important aspects, such as this. As for trusting the Bible's morality, have you ever read the Old Testament? This is full of incredibly vile acts, including sanctified murder, rape, paedophilia, incest, rape, and torture. Jesus did say he was bringing a new law, but he wasn't replacing the old. If you accept that, then you have to accept it all.

Yes definetly creation should be taught in our schools, this is what the "Word of God " teaches, this volume is the only reliable source of information. It is what Jesus Christ clearly taught. He was the greatest teacher, He was with God and was God all things were made by Him and without Him not anything was made that was made(John's gospel chapter 1 )
In Darwins book "On the origin of the Species" no less then 800 times he uses phrases such as like "let us assume..." or "We may well suppose "(H.Y Pickering)He based his ideas on what may or may not have happened . The book was a theoretical treatise based on observations he had made .
By definition a "Suppostion" is a hypothesis or idea, that is a suggestion that may be true ,or has been accepted on the basis of some evidence ,but without proof!
When we take note of Biblical teaching it stamped all over with certainties, such as "Thus saith the Lord"" God created, the heavens and the earth"
Do we want our children to be taught by a myth, or by divine truth. If we want to be taught "Evolution" we put God out of the equasion,which makes us irresponsible, because otherwise we are our own gods and are accountable to no one. But faith in a loving Creator makes us accountable to God and upright living will be a byproduct of such a faith!

"I believe that when God created humans, he formed them from dust, because that's what the bible says, so I believe it."

Circular logic is circular.

This young man must have an evidence-based connection to his faith and science-informed intelligence - but the clips were put together omitting
this.......and that's a great pity !

I agree with Sam. As for the dinosaurs co existing alongside humans, there is lots of observable evidence for this. Some of the earliest pieces of human art contains images of human hunters gathered around a large, suspiciously dinosaur-like creature. Humans have countless dragon myths dating back millenia (Dinosaur is a relatively new word compared to the much older word meaning, more or less, the same thing: dragon). I believe the Dinosaurs where driven to extinction after the flood because humans felt threatened by their presence and decided to hunt and kill them all.

Creationism has as much a right to be taught in schools as a science as Evolution does. They are both scientific hypothesis that can be supported by varying forms of evidence. I think it is wrong to include one theory (which evolution certainly is) whilst excluding the others.

Thank you Sam for that wonderful video, cheered me up no end.

The problem with the biblical account of creation is that like all other creation myths it was cobbled together by superstitious ancient peasants who still thought the earth was flat.
Claiming god as a first cause of anything is a deeply flawed argument. You come smack up against a problem of infinite regress - god created the universe, but who created god? And who created the creator of the creator? Or the creator of the creator of the creator?
"Creating himself by magic" is an artificial full stop to the problem of infinite regress as you're essentially asserting that a being with a non-existant hand attached to a non-existant arm with a non-existant mind created himself out of a state of non-being. With what exactly?
Which non-existant faculties did he bring to bear to magic himself out of nothing? You're straight down a logical highway to nowhere. And why is this creation myth any more compelling than the 100 or so other creation myths past and present which aren't getting class time.
That doesn't adequately explain the problem you set out to explain in the first place, i.e. why there's something rather than nothing, because you now have to explain not just the existance of a universe but this spontaneously self-creating omnipotent omniscient deity (who hasn't even been proven to exist anyhow) thus defering the problem back one step in time. That is known as infinite regress.
I used to be christian myself and know how convincing these arguments sound when you've been told not to question dogma but that's not how science works.

This kid is the reason why we cant have nice things.

He literally says write down what you need to to get the marks, but you don't have to believe what you are writing down. This kid walks like a duck, and he quacks like a duck, but he is not a duck, and by duck i mean scientist.

A scientist has to have the professionalism to seek the ever evolving truth, as it evolves alongside our understanding of the universe. Once a theory is dis-proven a scientist has to have the professionalism to adjust their world view. That is the difference between science and religion.

Everything science has observed about the universe crushes any possibility that the biblical account of creation is true. From the observable short span evolution of viruses to the long term evolution observed in the fossil record,from the formation processes of the geological features beneath our feet to the fact that we can look up into the sky at night and have a photon which has travelled from the Andromeda galaxy for 2.5 million years enter out eye, a biological tool which has been evolving for at least 200 times that length of time to reach the 'perfection' that creationists claim to be evidence of the intelligent design of a designer.

The truth observed in reality is that the human eye is no where near perfection, a 'design' which is constructed backwards and upside down, a non optimal product produced through 500 million years of the survival of the most advantageous random mutation in a cluster of cells, a game played out for every single generation of every species running in parallel and which has turned out far more effective eyes than ours in other species.

So too is the truth that we suffer extraordinarily from the fact that we as a species were never meant to walk upright. Our guts, attached to the inner wall of our rib cages along the back evolved to hang down in neat rows , as they do in other animals like horses dogs and cats, our spines, designed to act as horizontal beams, forced now to act as vertical pillars, causing our innumerable back problems from the loads and strains they were never set up to take.

All these things and a million more, from dozens of fields of science tell us that a religious 'instant' creation, be it biblical or anything else, is absolutely and demonstrably false.

To reject all available observable evidence in favour of belief is not science.

Exhibit A of how religion poisons minds. This is a very bright kid who has been brainwashed to believe lies. He's in so deep it's going to take decades to de-program him. It's practically child-abuse and whoever has done this to him ought to be ashamed and vilified. It's a pity they can't be prosecuted.

The video must be satire. Nobody could be this stupid.

http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/

Chilling idiocy.

no it shouldnt !!

i as a logical person and a atheist could not even want to learn something that i did not believe in , i cant believe he said that he took a test and said he put down answers that he thought was wrong but did it anyway , gods watching u :) !!

no it shouldnt !!

i as a logical person and a atheist could not even want to learn something that i did not believe in , i cant believe he said that he took a test and said he put down answers that he thought was wrong but did it anyway , gods watching u :) !!

As young earth creationist and geologist Kurt wise said "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate".
You cannot argue with a mind that corrupted.

No he won't cringe. He'll most likely be happy in his credulous little world, but he will harm others by legitimising viewpoints that conveniently ignore facts and evidence or write them off as a "test of faith" by an inexplicably mischievous creator. I used to find this sort of thing amusing, now I find it chilling and depressing, especially the "logical" step that puts dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame. Surely the true logical conclusion is that the sacred text cobbled together, edited, translated and re edited in the last couple of thousand years by a succession of self interested parties is likely to be incorrect.
The Norse used to believe that thunder was caused by the passage of Thor's chariot, eventually a better explanation came along.

I congratulate Sam for being brave enough to be free of the straight-jacket of evolution. We need more "free-thinkers" like him. As for those who oppose the teaching of creation as well as evolution, what are they scared of? Aren't young people capable of evaluating the evidence and making up their own minds? To suggest otherwise is an insult to their in intelligence. Why should the evolution theory be not be open to critical examination? The hostile reactions of many responders underlines the fact that this controversy is not an matter of science vs. faith, but a battle between two belief systems.

This young man says that he answers the questions as expected, but doesn't believe what he has written. This verges on lying - not very Christian - and he certainly implies that his teachers have been lying to him in teaching him evolution.
Should his predicted bright future in the sciences result in his becoming a biology teacher, will he in turn lie to his pupils by teaching them the evolution in which he does not believe, or will he tell the truth and perpetrate a real lie by teaching creationism?

All I can say is this is proof of declining education standards. If you really understood the syllabus on Natural Selection (not Evolution!!!) then you would not treat it with the disdain you evidently have at the moment. If I had come out with this (in my catholic grammar school) when I took my A level in Biology in 1981 my teacher would have been horrified and I would have been laughed out of school. Creationism is the biggest retrograde force in US education today. The fact that it is now spreading to the UK is alarming and shows that we are indeed "Dumbing Down".

Anyone who actively supports, advocates or encourages the teaching of any creation myth as 'science' should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, as should this young man. It is appalling that this is even a subject for debate. There's a reason we don't teach children that Thor rides his chariot through thunderstorms and throws his hammer to create lightning, just like there's a reason why we don't teach children that Kaang of African mythology created the moon out of an old shoe. They are not true, they are not science. They are simply ancient attempts at explaining what people witnessed around them, during a time when nobody had any idea whatsoever about why things were the way they were.

Furthermore, it's a common criticism against atheists that they are strident and irrational when it comes to this matter, and that in campaigning against the teaching of rubbish in science classrooms, they are being closed-minded and as dogmatic as their opponents. This is a claim made by people that fail to distinguish between narrow-mindedness, and protection of rationality from those seeking to teach lies as a perverted form of science. You don't need to be an atheist to recognise that this tripe is no alternative. Why should Genesis be given preference over Norse or Egyptian creation myths? Some of them are fantastic, enthralling stories, others aren't so good. But none deserve any place in our science classrooms.

Congratulations on your top A level results Mr Perry, it just saddens me to see such a capable young man actually making an effort to push drivel into our places of education. I can only say that whilst you're free to blind yourself to the truth, please do not encourage others to do the same.

Creationism is not, and should not, be taught in schools because it contradicts reality. As such we should not be teaching things to children that are simply not true, to do so is to lie to children.

Remember:- "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian.

Mr Perry. Congratulations on your excellent A level results.

However, it's a shame that your very first words made any science qualifications you hold utterly meaningless:

"[I believe that when God created humans, he formed them from dust,] because that's what the Bible says, so I believe it."

I had to stop this half way through.

This kid's brain is completely wasted on utter garbage. He talks about doing a biology A level and logic and can't understand the logic which is right in front of him in his biology books.

Take your idiotic fairy tales and go away. If you attempt to teach this worthless creationist crap to children you're going to have a huge problem on your hands as you'll have made an enemy of parents who actually want their kids to be taught things which are TRUE.

Using the bible as a proof of creationism is like proving superman exists using a comic. Saying any more would give this fantasy credence.

Well done Sam, one of the best and most polished arguments for the teaching of creationism, I look forward to hearing more from you in the future. Keep up your studies.

You start your case by admitting that you are intellectually dishonest. This fatally undermines it from the start. If we start teaching creationism, which is not a science in any way and actively avoids the vital steps such as using the scientific method, being falsifiable and undergoing peer review, then we would also have to teach that the earth might be flat amid other inane disproven hypotheses. The same principles apply; it's in the bible, you believe it, it's totally baseless and clashes with known evidence leading to people having a disregard for what is true and becoming ignorant.

Sam, Genesis 1 has God creating all the sea creatures and birds on day 5 and all the animals, 'man' and 'woman' on day 6. However, Genesis 2, has God first creating Adam then, because he is alone, he creates beasts of the field and every fowl of the air. Once Adam had named them, God causes him to fall into a deep sleep, takes out one of his ribs and creates Eve. If the bible is scientifically accurate, then how come the two versions of creation in Genesis contradict each other?

To be honest I am very pleased with all the comments on this video, since most seem to reject this suggestion. Doing science A levels, is not real science, simple as that. All this boy has learned to to parrot learn answers to specific questions. This is nothing to do with real scientific research. This is clearly just a young lad who got his first taste of success and now thinks he knows better than other people, not exactly an uncommon occurence.

To put someone who is still a child on a stage like this is just ridiculous.

And for those who keep trying to use the inclusion of the word theory to disprove scientific principles, let me put it this way. Gravity is still a "theory", you can disbelieve all you want, but its still gunna put you on your butt.

Mythology, was used to make sense of things that we did not understand. Where does the Sun go at night? Does it hide behind a mountain? Are people in Africa Black because Apollo lost control, and flew his Sun chariot to close to the land and scorched the people? Stories like these may contain truths about what it means to be human, and our place in the Universe, as we believe it to be. Mr. Perry is suggesting that we run our lives according to the Bible in the same way that people living on a Space Station in the 24th century might use the county council minutes of Wakefield. He mentions that if we were to teach the science of the bible,(the sixth day etc..) then we might trust its Morality. The problem is, that, like science we have also moved on, and we have new definitions of what it is to be human and our place in the Universe. I'm not saying there is no room for God. But does he really think that believing that Dinosaurs existed at the same time as Human beings makes the case for believing in the Bible?

Sam's willingness not to be bound by the straight-jacket of evolution is encouraging. We need more 'free-thinkers' like him! Why should evolution be protected from critical examination? Are those who oppose the teaching of creation saying that young people can't be allowed to make up their own minds? If creationism is as absurd as its detractors claim, what are they so worried about?
I believe that this is not science vs. faith issue but a battle between two world-views, and the hostile comments some have posted are proof of this.

Wonder what would happen if a module was introduced to final year science degrees that encouraged people to critically analyze YEC.

It would be a systematic savaging by millions of people that could be given a slot on tv as a comedy show.

Creationism ? . If i had proof that God didn't excist and didn't make the world in 7 days would you believe me, i expect not. Thats the thing about science we can prove or disprove discoveries in any of the sciences
1. The world isn't the centre of the universe its off to one side
2. It revolves round the sun
3. If its our right to have as many children as we like where is God going to put them all he better get back to work and make a few more earths ect ect

Teaching Creationism in schools is an abuse of privilege. Those who would teach Creationism are guilty of holding back the development of critical thinking and thus a person's whole development. I speak as an Orthodox Christian. No one who is prepared to teach Creationism should be allowed near children in the same way that those who believe in the tooth fairy should be allowed near a child.

All lies the earth is only about 6000 years old. the Bible can be trusted and is a true account of creation. you cant make a monkey out of me.

if thats the case i think we need to start again

Creationism? You might as well teach of the possibility of magic, fairies or the existence of Santa Claus....

yes creationism should be taught in school's in the RELIGOUS EDUCATION CLASS as what some people believed happened, without evidence, thousands of years ago and what the few who have these beliefs are born into adopting the religion of their parents. Along with all other myths and legends. In a science class some of the reasons why they are wrong may be touched apon but theory based on evidence should be stressed the exact opposite of religon.

What a depressing clip. It does highlight one fact clearly though. Gaining an A* at A-level is an indication of knowledge, but not wisdom.

Knowledge is, for example, being able to recite passages from the bible from memory. Wisdom is understanding that they are an irrelevant work of pure fiction.

Let us hope that, in this case, wisdom will come with age and experience.

Sam. You are the dangerous thin edge of the religious wedge. One that leads to the worst intolerences in man to others who do not share your views.
There is a lot of good in the bible, as with the majority of religious texts but this does not mean that it is true. It is essentially a guide through which to live your life but modern science disproves god and creationism. Such a fundemental belief smacks of denial and hints at a borderline mental disorder.

I would like to ask Mr Perry, why as a paleoevolutionary biologist I have NEVER found a fossil of a mammal within the same strata as say a Dimemtrodon from the Triassic period or or the Ostracoderms or the jawless fish from the Devonian period. Creationism is not taught within schools (at least within a scientific context at least) because it is not scientific, it does not ahere to the scientific method and is qute frankly ludicrous, as it works on nothing but assumption and magic. Why will you always without fail, find an increase in complexity throughout the rock layers with the earliest being stromatolites found in W.Australia rising through the Cambrian explosion, to the age of fishes, then onto the early Tetrapods Tiktaalik,Acanthostega,Ichthyostega et al)onto the early mammals, and the dinosaurs.Also why do these all end at the KT boundary, this is something that creationists cannot answer, becuase there is no way TO answer it.

Creationism belongs within the realms of mytholgy or possibly in R.E as an idea that some who are infected with the virus of religion actually beleive.

Why does science suggest that the world is spherical and not flat. The Bible is very clear that there are 4 corners to the Earth. Which is right? There must be more than one way to find out, and I don't mean deploying an Inquisition. Also, are the other explanations of life and the world expounded in equal measure, for example Buddhist analysis, or that of the Brahma Kumaris? Creationists should want to see all these in science lessons rather than just Judaism. However, religious faith historically is the root of knowledge and understanding, and all other strands of knowledge, including philosophy and science, flow from it. When I worship God at church each Sunday I understand that explanations about creation show that God underpins everything but that the language used when the Bible was written was of its time and perhaps the best available. The place for religious discourse in schools is in a theology lesson not in science.

Sam is an excellent example of the power of Indoctrination. He is only 18 years old though and has a lot still to learn. I myself only really explored the evidence behind religion last year after an evangelical friend tried to convert me which was a scary experience. After a bias presentation of her view at her church and threats of eternal damnation I came to the conclusion that I would look into the evidence myself. For me evolution answers much more than the bible can and I have a question for the creationists. If God created the earth then who created God?

This is my third attempt to place my comments on this site. Not wishing to go into the detail I did before I shall just keep it very simple.
The story of Genesis refers only to the FIRST Creation, which was the formation of the spiritual realms (Paradise) and does not refer in any way to the physical creation we see all around us. The various universes (there are seven in total) and ethereal realms came into being much later through a process of radiation - all is radiation.
Creation did not begin with any Big Bang (a concept thought up by so-called experts full to the brim with pseudo-knowledge).
I would suggest to evolutionists on here that their own bigotry is far worse than that of the Creationists. Only a lazy individual would adopt someone else's thinking without first of all subjecting it to the most careful scrutiny. All should be weighed and examined very carefully before making any sweeping remarks about subject matter none of you have any knowledge of. And yes, I do possess knowledge because the answers to all questions regarding the formation of creation and how and why we are here on this earth is available to all who genuinely seek after it. Seek and ye shall find; Knock, and the door shall be opened to you. The Truth exists on this earth but is not to be found htrough the various schools of thought. Religion is man-willed but the Truth is God-Willed.

Sam - the earth is indisputably about 4,500 million years old, regardless of what you think about evolution. Don't make the mistake of thinking that only evolutionists believe the earth is old. However, by aligning yourself with young-earth loons you are only inviting ridicule.

Sam, if you are advocating the teaching of the Genesis creation myth in schools as fact, in the pursuit of 'fair and objective' science, you'd be as well teaching children that I created the universe, or that anyone else writing on this page created the universe. All are on an evidential equivalent with one another, and all share the same non-existent scientific credence.

Hey Sam, well done to you mate. Not many people say what they feel today, well feelings are just "chemicals" they say. I say it's just a way to get rid of the guilt that they feel, because they know that we all will 'DIE' one day (!fact!)and we will be asked "what did you do with the life that i gave you".
We are alive not just chemicals, our spirits will not die with our bodes, they will live forever.

I firmly believe that science and faith can go hand in hand,I have heard many scientists that have come to believe through going to the bible for evidence! nevertheless I was not there when everything that was made, was made,but neither were any of you sceptics , and weather you believe or not is left to your choosing ,But I know all the books of the bible have all ready happened except Revelation,God loves everyone of you out there even the unbelievers,choose life and accept the love He offers,you don't know your deadline on life, so put your faith in the only one who can save you!!!

Its ironic that the teaching creationism to children is evolving us back into primitive mided animals. Its one thing to fool an adult, but to fool children in schools like this is truly a scary thought.

Well done Sam. I too am a Biologist. I read Zoology at Oxford and taught A level Biology. The evidence from genetics, cell structure, information theory etc makes evolution totally impossible. Cell structure and cell metabolism is seen to be more and more complex and cannot possible have evolved step by step; all parts must be present. Living things do change but this is limited and involves only the original created genes - mutation always results in loss of genetic information. Natural selection enables creatures to adapt to new environmental conditions.The majority of the millions of fossils found worldwide were formed by Noah's Flood. There are 1000's of scientists worldwide and in the UK who believe that the almighty Creator God made the heavens and the earth and the different 'kinds' of creatures in 6 days just as described in Genesis. Since then there has been diversification within each kind to produce the modern species using only the original created genes;1000's of separate 'kind' trees not just one Darwinian tree of descent.
Wendy Sharpless

Can something evolve or develope from nothing?
How did that which evolved or develope come to be?.
If its a bang what was it that banged and what led to the bang.
knowledge should be objective!! Most atheists are more BrainWasheD
than the worst religious fanatic....

Can something evolve or develop from nothing?
If it was a bang? what was it that banged and how did they
come about? what is the source of initial preceding force or action
that led to the bang? What is the origin of that which originated others. What is the source of the order or is everything (You and I) a random...???????

Sam, I think you have been watching too many propaganda from Ken Ham and the likes who in my humble opinion put extreme effort in denying reality. Creationism should not be *taught*, but it can be used to explain the difference between fact and fiction.

Why has this guy even passed an A Level science exam? He hasn't understod what science is at all!
Of course if he's just regurgatated what he was told/read in a book he will make a great theologian.

Firstly, evolution is NOT scientific fact although some scientists claim to have evidence to support the theory which I can understand coming from a science background. Evolution however is not fact otherwise there would not be people from the scientific community who reject evolution.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Secondly - the complexity of the cell:
Evolution does not explain how you get life(a living cell). There is no concrete explanation for it from the scientific world therefore there is an ASSUMPTION made into how a cell is formed and infact also for the rest of the story (Without scientific proof) for how you eventually get humans (This is a leap of faith is it not?).

Thridly - some things 'non scientific'; using your common sense is a valid source for reaching conclusions. So if i say there is a 1 in a billion chance I will win the lottery tonight its fair to say that I wont win it and absurd to assume that I will. So it is absurd to say that a protein or a cell for that matter will occur through much smaller possibilities. But this sort of assumption is consistently made by evolutonists. So they ultimatley say evolution is possible rather than probably.
Propoganda - The propoganda machine of evolutionists (Not of them to be fair) fail to mention that science 'points' towards evolution (althought i disagree) but rather say that evolution is a fact. This sort of claim is an insult to science.
There are many self professed athiests in our comunity who know nothing about science but have somehow become experts in science and claim evolution to be true.

Finnaly, if there is anyone out there who can convince me in a proper scientific manner why evolution is true I am ready to accept the challange and also reject a creator (which I have concluded from common sense).

Well done Sam for dealing with what is the core problem with what is being taught today as science- Evolution.
It's all about one's worldview because both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence but a different outcome, a different worldview and the fear isn't the science being done but the notion that there is an authority greater than and that is GOD

I don't understand how you can apply logic to creationism. If you were to apply logic you would look at scientific facts for your answers. Though if you haven't conducted experiments and analysed all the data yourself it is as much a belief as the the idea of creationism. However you do have the ability to confirm that the science is correct which you do not have with creationism.

You mention you don't have to believe what you're writing in exams. Does this mean you you don't believe what you are taught is true, that people are lying to you? Or do you take the view that yes science has told us humans have existed for x of years and the planet is y years old but god is just trying to fool us. If its the latter then you have contradicted yourself heavily in this video.

I disagree with a lot of your views but I think your heart is in the right place in terms of teaching people morals, however, teaching young impressionable children that everything in the bible actually happened is disgusting and should illegal.

I hope you learn to question your sources in the future or you will end up being an awful scientist.

Good luck

I find it difficult to comprehend that you are actually giving air-time to people who still believe the scribblings of a load of ignorant, bronze age goat herders. If this young man wants to live in La La land, he should be doing so in a secure environment with all the other loonies in an asylum for the deluded, not airing his crazyness on TV.

Fully agree that creationism should be taught alonside evolution. Prof Dawkins seems to take the view that only idiots don't believe in Evolution. As he is an Atheist I also believe he is struggling with his view and is looking to generate support inorder to reassurfe himself. What would Jesus Christ things of this?

To confuse a faith, in a religious book, and truth which can be tested and reasoned with, is foolish. The science of mathematics has been used by masons to praise god and add extra truth to these buildings significance. Saying, 'creationism should be included in schools in order to allow children to make up their own mind', is like saying it's being kept out. When is it possible to keep the question out of ones mind? Who made me? Where did I come from? What does it mean to be alive?
If there is a god he can not have written our translated King James Bible anyway, so think, please for the sake of tolerance if nothing else..
(believer with a little b)

I find it quite interesting that the majority of creationists are so selective in their choice of quotations from their holy book. If one reads it "critically" it may be a ripping bunch of stories, but it contradicts itself a lot, particularly if the reported teachings of Jesus (who seems to have been quite a nice chap) are compared to the old testament, parts of which the creationists pick to support their arguments: forgiveness, turning the other cheek, versus an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, casting the first stone at the "different" or "immoral". The majority of creationists (or at least those proposing "creation science" be tought in schools) claim to be Christians, so they should be happy to admit Jesus's teachings of tolerance, his willingness to challenge religious dogma.

Perhaps we should remember that the old testament (with its creation stories) was written by a ruling class of priests, possibly with their own interests in mind, for the edification and moral guidance of a largely illiterate, uneducated population of farmers and shepherds, and a scientific description would have perhaps gone over their heads - I imagine a simple story of a supreme being creating all the universe's wonder and diversity in seven days would be a little easier to put across? It would certainly give more authority to those wishing to claim a "direct line to God" than admitting that they "just don't know how it all begain, perhaps one day we'll find out".

To paraphrase, as a citizen of the 21st century, who appreciates what science has done for us (no more smallpox epidemics, the prospect of living to see my grandchildren as adults, the sheer joy of knowledge), "Do not offer me faith, for faith deies proof, and without proof I am nothing"

That, after all, is the difference - science offers us proof of what it claims, religion *demands* blind faith.

Quote:"Day 6,God created Man and all land animals......including dinosaurs."Im sorry to burst your bible bubble young man,but the evidence shows Earth and our solar system as 4.5 billion years old,the Universe at large as 14 billion years old.
I understand upbringing can play a role in closed minds and blind faith.
Are your parents so believing in a book of fabels??
Obviously your an intelligent teenager and entitled to your view on our creation,but to keep it simple,look up at the night sky. Physics,you should read up about it!!!!

Seriously! Creationism is not a theory it's barely coherent. it's word salad that boils down to an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you should have taken 'A' Level philosophy and focussed on logical fallacy.

I have done extensive research on Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution. In my studies, I concluded that Evolution should be taught in Science classes while Intelligent Design and Creationism could be taught in a Social Studies or Philosophy class. The reasons behind my conclusion were that Intelligent Design and Creationism propose no falsifiable or testable claims. (Excluding Irreducible Complexity and Defined Complexity that is. Both of which have been proven wrong.) Furthermore, I found that the organizations that promote these pieces of evidence, such as IdeaCenter and DiscoveryCenter claim that both of these concepts (IE and DC respectively.) have been proven by Science. That is a blatant lie and was ashamed to see Science tarnished by such outrageous claims. Intelligent Design and Creationism are pseudosciences. At the very core, it is not falsifiable, nor is it testable. Therefore, it does not belong in Science classrooms across the world.
It is a philosophy or a social study. It is not a science.

People need to try to understand that in science, the word "theory" is not the same as the colloquial use of the term. Is is a concept which has been rigorously tested over and over again and repeatedly verified through observation as a consistent explanation of the present data.

It's not "just" a theory.

Painful to watch, he will never know how wrong he is. EVER!

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Its the only true way to keep freedom of speech and do away with the fascist politically correct brigade.
Who tell us how we should act and what to say and what not to say.

Master Perry denies biology like a flat-earth believer denies physics. Creationism's 'theories' (I use the word in the layman's sense rather than the scientific meaning) are retroactively fitted to the Story of Genesis. Advocates delight in shining the spotlight on evolution's miniscule and exceedingly rare shortcomings while ignoring the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed evidence - as well as glossing over their own endemic inaccuracies.

Creationism is based on naive, outdated and obsolete ideas. More importantly, teaching it as a science is as dangerous and foolish as teaching Raiki as a cure for cancer. Religious beliefs are all well and good - but swallowing cod-scientific nonsense for the sake of protecting your beliefs is ludicrous.

This guy makes me crazy!

I can't work out if this guy is really clever, or deluded!

"Dinosaurs are land-animals" - of course, especially those living under water.

And he also said why he wants creationism tought in schools: He wants people to believe other parts of the bible too, like the silencing of women, the liberal ideas on slavery, the belief in a god who eradicated entire tribes because they wouldn't believe in him and the fact that a god got so angry at the humans he could instead simply have created perfectly that he had to send himself in form of his own son to earth as a sacrifice to himself. It is sad that there still are people in Europe actually believing this nonsense

"That's what the Bible says, so I believe it"

How can you declare your credulousness with such pride?

Additionally, even if the Bible were by some hugely ironic miracle discovered to be scientifically correct, in the face of everything we know ("holy moley! Turns out insects had four legs all along!"), that still wouldn't vindicate the moral lessons. Picking an extreme example, Hitler was famously a vegetarian and passed lots of animal cruelty laws, which I think we can all agree was a good thing. However, I don't think any sane person would say that it validated the rest of his actions. The same goes for the Bible. Just because its correct in one thing, like there actually being a country called Egypt, doesn't make the rest of it automatically correct.

Congratulations Sam, you have not been sucked in by the biological theories.
Folk say they have evidence, but there is only enough to make the idea of evolution no more a theory. Nothing has been ever observed to evolve into another species! There is good evidence for man being around for about only about 6000 years. Evolution is not good science. Ask for evidence from evolionist! Jesus showed he believed in creation, so should Christians.
Phil

The story of creation as depicted in the story of Genesis refers to what I have already stated previously on here ... it refers to the FIRST creation - the spiritual origin of all human spirits; it does not refer to this earth.
All that mankind can survey (plus that which he cannot) belongs to a subsequent creation (i.e., that which followed the first creation), which came into existence through a process of the Light Radiation of God.
The creation story has been wrongly placed on this earth, the furthest outpost of the entire subsequent creation; and this evolutionary process did not happen overnight - it took many millions of years.
Also, for those who advocate that God acts arbitrarily is to deny the perfection of God and His Creation; because perfection knows of no improvement nor arbitrariness! Only God's Will is to be found in creation, not God Himself. Creation could not withstand the tremendous Light pressure of God Himself.
I believe absolutely and with total conviction in Almighty God but I do not hold with much that is taught in the various religious schools; for the very reason that much has either been misinterpreted through genuine lack of understanding, or even deliberately distorted for selfish gain.
In closing I state here that it is the sacred duty of every human spirit to find out why it is living on this earth and it cannot do this through blindly accepting the ready-made opinions of others, whether this be through religion or science!
Religion is man-willed; the Truth ... is God-Willed!

Sam is flawed on the grounds that he provides no evidence for his claims aside from that 'The Bible says so.'
That is not science and therefore Biblical Creation hypothesis (I make the distinction between theory and hypothesis here) should remain in the RMPS class.

I don't believe that creationism should be taught in science classrooms, but I don't have any objection to it being taught as one of many religious world views (as long as it actually was treated as one of many, not preached as absolute truth) in Religious Education (RE). Science is the study of evidence and the theories based on that evidence. As far as I am aware, the only evidence for creationism is what is written in the Bible. Evidence for evolution can be found all over the world in many different forms.
By the same coin propsed in the video, should we not teach all the creation myths of the world to students? After all, what makes the Judeo-Christian creation myth any more likely to be true than the creation stories of the Greeks or Romans? If you think about it, the same people who push teaching creationism in schools would be equally passionate in pushing study of the Roman myth, had their beliefs not disappeared centuries ago.
Teach pupils of creationism in the RE classroom by all means, but treat it as an equal alternative to the corresponding stories of the Hindus and the Aztecs and all other belief systems. That way, pupils would have the same choice regarding which myth (if any) they choose to believe as they would in the situation proposed by this film. But for those of us who are scientifically minded, creationism is sorely lacking in evidence and thus does not come under the category of science. So I would strongly protest if creationism ever found it's way into a science curriculum. Keep religion and science as separate entities in schools.

I am not sure about creationism being taught as it will be taught with propaganda against it or for it. It is the same with evolution, and other current scientific ideas. One fact we can all agree on is that scientific theories can be very, very wrong and we do misinterpret evidence.

The scientific view of creation is only a theory based on preconceived and man-made notions. Everyone following Darwinism collects 'evidences' and organises them in a pseudo-logical order. How I agree with Sam Perry! God's order of events is much more logical!

I think that teachers should teach that other theories exist regarding the beginning of the Universe. There is no way of proving or disproving the Big Bang and Evolutionary theories and therefore students should be given the opportunity to examine the theories themselves.
Believing in the creation of the universe by a God requires only one step of faith: there is a God. Believing in evolution requires many steps of faith in believing the thousands of coincidences/developments that had to take place for sentinent beings with moral standards to evolve from gloop.

There is no way of proving or disproving either creationism or evolution. Therefore students should be told that there are several theories regarding the beginning of the world. They should be taught how to evaluate theories and then allowed to make up their own mind.
I was surprised when I realised that believing in a creator requires only one leap of faith: there is a God. Believing the evolutionary theories requires several leaps of faith in order to believe in the thousands of coincidences that needed to occur in order for sentinent moral beings to evolve from 'gloop'.

I love the way that most people are happy that an unproved theory of evolution is taught as fact to children who then accept it as gospel.

I think creationism should be taught as alternative unproved theory if you like. I find it easier to believe that the world and all the amazing things were created than just started from nothing and by a series of accidents ended up like this. We can evolve a dog into another breed of DOG but without actually pulling apart its genetic code can't make it into a cat. I also find it too hard to believe that all the creatures that rely on other creatures or certain conditions evolved that way. Plus most of the creatures (except dinosaurs) that supposedly evolved into higher creatures are still around?

I think kids should be taught the different theorys until one is proven as fact and not just accepted that way. Let them then make up their own minds what they believe.

I believe that God created this world and everything in it as I was taught in the Bible which was around long, long before Darwin had any thoughts let alone theories.

These opposing worldviews will never be reconciled because both camps believe things about the past that can't be proven or tested.

Darwinian evolution - which is an outworking of Naturalism - is a theory that explains facts according to a faith position.
Creationism - which is an outworking of Biblical belief - explains facts according to a faith position.

The facts are not trial here, the faith positions that interpret the facts are.

Because neither faith can be proven correct, both creationists and evolutionists must become much more humble in their rhetoric.

Creationism is not a scientific theory! It is a belief system and should not be thought as a scientific subject in schools. I have no problem with it being taught on the religious syllabus.

We should not accept the "science" Christians claim because it flies in the face of real science. If Creationism is to be taught in schools it should only be done so in religious studies and not in science. These wild and unsubstantiated claims made by Christians have no basis in fact or science. Creationists are so blinkered and their beliefs should not be taught in science because there is no justifiable cause for it to be there. Dinosaurs have been PROVEN to have lived millions of years ago NOT thousands as this individual claims. Childrten of any faith should not have the faith of any group rammed down it's throats.

Perhaps it is time to take Christianity out of schools, as there are children of so many faiths in schools.

When I went to school creationism (20+ years ago) was taught. It was included in Religious Studies and that's exactly where it should stay.

Funny there's no mention of dinosaurs in The Bible. Sam I'm guessing they went extinct and were encased in rock because Noah couldn't fit them in his arc and presumably God played around with various isotopes to fool carbon-dating experts so only the truly faithful would be allowed in heaven.

Avoiding for a moment the contention of creationism/the Bible as scientific fact, or what a close reading of the bible is likely to produce in terms of moralistic output, the logical fallacy of Mr Perry's argument essentially boils down to 'Apples are good for you, apples were mentioned in this book, therefore this book is good for you. Science!' Does this mean that the literature of opposing religion is an attempt at peer review?

Oh rigours academic and scientific, wherefore art thou in this our time of need?

Should evolution be taught in schools? I was taught the peppered moth proved evolution, now proven false, it proves natural selection. I was taught babies in the womb have gill slits like a fish, again now proven false. Humans evolved from apes, but still the missing links are missing and the DNA is differant. The human appendix must have been left over from evolution, again false it is now known to help control bacteria entering the intestines. The list goes on. What about the Piltdown man in the British museum I believe for about 40years, the whole thing was false. Why do evolutionists want this in schools? Why not the truth? Dinosaur blood cells have been found, how can they be 65 million years old.
The truth needs to be taught in schools. Evolution is a theory and a bad one at that. In the beginning God created.

I find it incredibly sad that people delude themselves in such a way; the amount of evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that we may well as have a discussion arguing that the earth is actually triangular; rejection of evolution which in itself is worrying is also rejection of evidence based enlightened scientific principles, it takes us back to the dark ages where superstition was the norm. My worry is that views like these will take us down a slippery slope and undo all the good that has come from science;the natural world and so many aspects of our planet and the cosmos are truly beautiful, amazing and awe inspiring, we should be humbled that evolution has allowed our species to have the ability to explore and discover them, we truly are lucky but not because of some superstitious being.

The argument against teaching creationism in schools is that it is a fundamental dogma of particular religions and these religions do not allow discussion, debate or questioning of their 'faith' based truths. It is not taught as a possible alternative explanation of the creation it is preached as unquestionable fact. The unfortunate truth is that it will not stop at creationism along with fear and superstition will be used as a way of thoroughly and systematically indoctrinating and subjugating the minds of children with the aim of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions. This is clearly demonstrated by the young earth brigade that not only disagree with biological evolution but also cosmology, physics, geology and most other science subjects none of which can be reconciled with a young earth creation stories.

I think some people simply enjoy 'going against the grain' - perhaps it makes them feel different and somehow interesting. A young stubborn mind I feel enjoying belonging to a community that garners much notoriety.

I feel some people simply enjoy going against the grain, perhaps it makes them feel different or somehow interesting. A young stubborn mind enjoying belonging to a community that garners notoriety I think.

The amount of scientific evidence to back up the theory of evolution is just vast and still increasing, while there is NO scientific evidence so far to back up the creationist view. If Creationism is to be taught, it should be with Religious Studies, not in Science classes.

And for those who question use of the word "theory", it is defined as: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. So far, nothing in the fossil record has been found to disprove the theory of evolution (for example, human bones have never been found alongside dinosaur bones...)

I cannot fathom how you can argue an hypothesis objectively when you are swayed by such a fundamental bias.

how would creationists deal with Plate tectonics for example, is the main current theory in Earth Sciences regarding the development of our planet Earth. The Earth Science community, step by step, has built this theory, from early speculations, through the gathering of proof and severe debates, up to the refinement and quantification, and still ongoing confrontations with alternative ideas. The theory builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first decades of the 20th century, and accepted by the majority of the geoscientific community when the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Creationists don’t present alternative theories they simply state that they believe in creationism, earthquakes are the work of god, i.e. U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson's remark that Haiti's earthquake is God's retribution for a voodoo "pact with the devil."

Sorry Sam, but I think you've been set up as an Aunt Sally here. You've been allowed to make comments on a national TV station, an unfortunately the world and his son are going to knock them down.

I'm afraid that good A levels do not = good sense. I'd recommend further study...try Shubin's 'Know your Inner Fish', or Prothero's 'Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters'. Oh and stay away from those ID websites, they won't help.

Sam, shame you haven't done any critical thinking. For a start you are not talking about the recently invented 'creationism' but Christianity (aka Islam and Judaism) as evidenced by your quoting from Genesis. Creationism was made up to pretend it wasn't a religious viewpoint but a scientific theory so that it could be taught in schools in the US. Creationism isn't taught in schools for the same reason that the creation myths of the Norse, Greek and every other immature civilisation aren't taught - they're made up.

When it comes to creation all it takes is faith. Science is entirely different. Science and creation will not go hand in hand because they are different on too many levels. I must say that all these churches that are now in ruins or empty or transformed into libraries talk about the progress of the human mind over fear and dark ages.

No creationism should never be taught in Schools, Keep your delusional fantasies for in your church & out of education & politics.

Nice one, Sam. Brilliant irony, which people seem to be missing. You say we can trust the science of the Bible if we trust its morality and spirituality. Since its morality includes incest (Lot with his daughters Genesis19:30-36;65:22, Exodus 6:20), sex in public with ten of one's father's wives (2 Samuel 15:16; 16:21-23), raping one's sister and putting her out of the house in disgust (2 Samuel 13:2, 14-18), offering one's virgin daughter and one's guest's concubine to a crowd or randy men, telling them to do what they wanted with them all night long (Judges 19:16-26), massacring the civilian inhabitants of city after city (sound familiar?!)(Joshua 10:40), and commanding the massacre of the Midianites, except the virgins, whom the slayers kept for themselves, its science can only be as admirably divinely inspired. Cool, man.

"I can trust the Bible's science. That means I can trust the Bible's morality, I can trust the Bible when it comes to spiritual things."

Given the Bible's scientific credentials I'm not sure that many Christians would support this train of thought...

i think that for someone who seems to plug their grades in science so much, to say that dinosaurs and humans co-existed is just utterly hilarious. Fossils have been found of dinosaur remains dating back further then any human remains that have ever been discovered. 'ahh, well ok; i can trust the bibles science..' is also a bit of a comic highlight for me, because this young man obviously believes that all that is written in the bible is factual, and not a symbolic story....so i would like him to have a little read of revelations, just to makes sure he can trust the bibles science. Even if God is real, i dont think a human hand could write down his pure, true word.

Are you religious people not happy enough that we're already hundreds of years behind where we should be scientifically thanks to the dark ages, that you have to bring this absolute rubbish in?

Creationists believe that Adam and Eve existed and in Original Sin and snakes/serpents tempting Eve etc etc. I taught Science in schools for 33 years. Nowhere in the fossil record or geological evidence is there any reason to indicate that the Garden of Eden existed as the birthplace of man place and subsequent human development took place as descibed in the creation theory. If the Bible and Genesis did not exist where is the evidence from other sources that creation took place as descibed in the Bible? If this young man believes himself a scientist,then he has to justify his theory with evidence and facts.

The reason Sam Scott Perry has these beleifs is not through hard earnet scientific facts but purely because he happens to be religious. This is probably because his parents were also religous and he has not been strong minded eneough to think out of the box. Although Sam demonstrates that he has intelligence (his recent exam results) this does not meen that he automatically speaks the truth. People and dinosaurs living together, if you beleive that then you may beleive in santa claus! Finally, let science show the facts, not religion...(science works harder)

God states that He is and that the Bible is His Word. In over two and a half thousand years He hasn't changed His Word. Man by contrast is continually changing what he is sure is true. The "Big Bang Theory" is already well on its way and honest scientists have yet to present evidence (observable proof) for the theory of evolution--therefore its most ardent proponents must admit that it remains just that, a theory.
While the Bible is not a text book on science it is correct in every scientific matter that it mentions. It openly promises that all who seek the truth will find it, Gospel of Matthew chapter 7, verse 6 & 7.
So yes, I do think that all relevant educational topics in the Bible should be presented to students for their consideration.
After all they are going to learn in history lessons of Stalin and Adolf Hitler who made no secret that they were convinced evolutionists! I firmly believe that good education should be balanced.
Finally, Sam, Jesus is on record saying that God will honour those who serve Him, Gospel of John, ch.12 verse 26. So well done, and be encouraged to keep up the good work.

Mr Aziz wishes Creation to be taught in schools because he has not understood the complex processes of Evolution. Just because he cannot rationalise Evolution in terms of his faith, he has rejected it. Creationism can only be taught in schools as part of Mythological Study. Different faiths have their own Creation Myths so why should any Myth be promoted above another. None of them have a basis in scientific fact.
Evolution is a demonstration-able process with countless scientific papers.
If Mr Aziz denies Evolution on faith alone, then he is taking an I rational position.
As an educator, he should be unbiased in such matters.

Creationism should be taught in schools. How can you deny children the opportunity to learn about creation i.e. Christianity. Christianity has shaped the world we live in. How can you deny children the opportunity to learn on what principles great nations like America and England were founded? The very laws that govern our nation (England) were founded on the Bible. It takes greater faith to believe that we came from nothing (cosmic accident) than it does to believe that we were created by a loving God. Give children the choice i.e. both stories of how we came to be on this earth and you will be surprised what the children will believe. Bombarding our children with a theory (evolution) that is yet to be proved, is called brain-washing! At least teach them both and let them chose.

What's there to say. He's succeeded in achieving his a'level results, without truly learning the methods, facts and evidences he was taught.

Since neither creationism nor evolution is capable of scientific proof by repeatability, falsification, etc., we are left with one alternative: to believe the written report of the only Eyewitness. Since the Bible presents this Creator as the final Judge, to whom all will have to give an account, men prefer to erase Him from consideration. This young man has courage and will never regret believing what the Bible has told him.

Face palm! No direct evidence at all for anything supernatural, None!
Mountains of evidence for Evolution. Im sick of the fantasy, Wake up and live.

There is truth in evolution. Natural selection is a real phenomenon that allows many variations in different parts of organisms. Organisms do not improve their genome or evolve different parts (that aren't a part of the family genome). The most evolved species are cats and dogs. This is due to mans intervention (through artificial selection). They would not have (and have not) evolved as much in the wild. The truth in the observation of the evolution from wolves to domesticated dogs is that wolves are superior genetically. They have more variety in their genes and they are more genetically fit. All observations of evolution fit this downhill direction. So the false part of evolution is the dream scenario of getting a wolf from a one celled organism. That scenario is the antithesis to the actual evolution we have observed. So true evolution is "Survival of the fittest" and false evolution is "arrival of the fittest". Evolutionists like to fool people by making simple statements that make it sound like evolution does improve the genome. Like pointing out that Bacteria evolve resistance to medicine. Which is true in a sense. But when you look closer at the situation, the bacteria get that ability through a mutation that destroys a part of the bacteria that the medicine binds to and kills the bacteria. So the medicine can no longer bind to the bacteria that no longer has that part and it can't be killed. So in the precense of that medicine the healthy bacteria (with all the parts) die out and the mutated one thrives and produces more. In an environment without the medicine, the mutated bacteria have no chance of surviving against the healthy bacteria. So the problem with the way evolution is taught is that in the classroom they will just tell you that bacteria have evolved the ability to become resitant to medicine. And they use that to justify upward evolution. But if they explained to you exactly how the bacteria evolved the resistance, you could easily see how it's not the same type of evolution they want you to believe in. Creation doesn't need to be taught. Just the truth of what evolution actually is.

Sam thinks teaching creationism in schools leads to fair and objective science. How ?

From Creation Ministries International's website:

"6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record"

I attempted to reply to Richard's rather dogmatic comments on Sunday but my post did not appear. Science CAN show that Earth is NOT just 6,000 years' old.

According to the coursebooks for my UK Open University science course in 2009, the mineral zircon concentrates uranium to much higher levels than those in the magma from which it crystallises. Zircon crystals can be radiometrically dated using the decay of both uranium 235 to lead 207 and uranium 238 to lead 206 - allowing for two independent 'daughter atom to parent atom' ratios. It's said that zircons are handy because whilst they can incorporate uranium atoms, the structure contains very little lead other than that produced by uranium decay. It is also extremely stable with a 'tight' molecular structure, into and from which atoms rarely move. Zircons in metamorphic rocks in northern Canada have been dated at 4 billion years' old.

Ashley,
Here is a link that talks about accelerated decay, fission track dating and zircons. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Fission-Tracks-in-Zircons.pdf It's technical and long, but you can start at page 278 where he explains the results and all. Here is another link about zircons and uranium to lead dating http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove. The main points I am making are;
1. All dating methods are based in assumptions. They can't be known as fact. Nobody was around for the initial conditions or around to test year after year to know if conditions continued to remain the same.
2. It is a fact that rocks at Mt St Helens (rocks that were 50+/- years of age) were dated to be from 100,000's of years to millions of years old.
3. It is a fact that evolutionists do not publish all dates and have no problem excusing away dates that don't line up with what they believe to be true about the history of the earth.
4. It is a fact that there are many different dating methods used to date all types of things about the earth and whats within it and there are many things that just don't add up and have to be excused away.
So therefore the conclusion is that dating methods clearly do not produce factual dates and the results are questionable and the methods appear unreliable.

Richard
I didn't manage to read your pdf but I did read the Abstract here: http://www.icr.org/article/fission-tracks-zircons-evidence-for/
The final three sentences told me all I need to know about how the Institute for Creation Research (and Answers in Genesis which also publish Andrew Snelling) do 'science'.
Here is a link to a (fairly lengthy) paper that I think I mentioned earlier:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf
"Can you verify that as rocks harden, the parent element doesn't decay faster into daughter elements than it does after it hardens." No. Not off the top of my head. However, as far as I know, radiometric dating eg the two uranium to lead methods involving zircon crystals are carried out on rocks that are NO LONGER molten and have not been for thousands of years (or more if you are not a YEC). The logic conclusion being that all, or virtually all, of the atoms of the daughter lead isotope were formed by radioactive decay from the parent uranium isotope once the (extruded) rock was no longer molten and had cooled to its present temperature. I also assume (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that leading Young Earth Creationists are claiming accelerated nuclear decay for a short time after the molten rock cooled. I do not know whether it is possible to date rock that is still molten (which would not be very old, though it would be new rock formed underground from old ie possibly subducted material).
If people such as yourself claim that non-YECs prematurely proclaim their assumptions to be 'factual', I would counter that this is an example of YECs 'wriggling'.
Your other suggestion that the Earth did not exist, so history didn't happen, before human beings learnt to write is patently absurd.
On your second (similar) post, I will check the AiG link you supply (my expectations are low based on what I've read from them before). I would just add that there are OTHER mechanisms for fossilisation apart from catastrophic local floods. And that the assumptions made by YECs seldom square with logical or unbiased science - because they have a prior commitment to trying to defend a literal, historical, interpretation of the Bible.

Richard
Here again is my FIRST attempted comment of late 8 Dec/early 9 Dec UK time (it seems not to have got through though I can't really understand why):

I didn't manage to read your pdf but I did read the Abstract here: http://www.icr.org/article/fission-tracks-zircons-evidence-for/
The final three sentences told me all I need to know about how the Institute for Creation Research (and Answers in Genesis which also publish Andrew Snelling) do 'science'.
Here is a link to a (fairly lengthy) paper that I think I mentioned earlier:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf
"Can you verify that as rocks harden, the parent element doesn't decay faster into daughter elements than it does after it hardens." No. Not off the top of my head. However, as far as I know, radiometric dating eg the two uranium to lead methods involving zircon crystals are carried out on rocks that are NO LONGER molten and have not been for thousands of years (or more if you are not a YEC). The logic conclusion being that all, or virtually all, of the atoms of the daughter lead isotope were formed by radioactive decay from the parent uranium isotope once the (extruded) rock was no longer molten and had cooled to its present temperature. I also assume (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that leading Young Earth Creationists are claiming accelerated nuclear decay for a short time after the molten rock cooled. I do not know whether it is possible to date rock that is still molten (which would not be very old, though it would be new rock formed underground from old ie possibly subducted material).
If people such as yourself claim that non-YECs prematurely proclaim their assumptions to be 'factual', I would counter that this is an example of YECs 'wriggling'.
Your other suggestion that the Earth did not exist, so history didn't happen, before human beings learnt to write is patently absurd.
On your second (similar) post, I will check the AiG link you supply (my expectations are low based on what I've read from them before). I would just add that there are OTHER mechanisms for fossilisation apart from catastrophic local floods. And that the assumptions made by YECs seldom square with logical or unbiased science - because they have a prior commitment to trying to defend a literal, historical, interpretation of the Bible.

Scott says that 'logically' man and dinosaurs lived at the same time because the Bible says they were both created on the sixth day. However, his belief in Creationism is based on blind faith rather than logic.

I don't see how you can form a sensible argument by relying on logic in parts of his reasoning and not in others.

Did the great flood cover Mongolia? Much of it is 1000 metres above water, and there where "people" there from 800,000 years ago, and modern humans from 40,000 years.
Also what happens to Ice and Glaciers, did they remain under water or float above the rising waters?

His argument at the end of the video is completely fallacious.

If the bible was scientifically accurate that does not show that it is morally or "spiritually" accurate. All it shows is that the bible is scientifically accurate.

Why do most religious people make such huge leaps which even a child can understand are not connected.

It is also worth noting that the bible is in fact, not scientifically accurate.

If you let creationism into science lessons you would also have to teach the other 50,000 odd religious myths as well. Odds of one of them being correct 1 in 50,000. Odds of Science being correct: more often than not and improving as we gather more evidence for science and also increasingly good odds for science as more disproof of creationism is found.
The bible's morality is summed up by the fact that the sky fairy/god kills more people than the devil.

science is man trying to find out the works of god, this is impossible 4 man. how can stupid people belive darwin crap. should sack all these idiots of proffessors and knock the universities down. and theres no sutch thing as "the big bang " god probaly came down in a space ship and being a brilliant genetic engineer that he is, created everything d lake

Standards for Biology in schools have slipped!!!

Darwinism is just a theory and should be taught as a theory rather than actual fact.

Creationism is not science. You have no credibility because you lied in answering questions in your exam.

In what world does he live in? Teletubies land?

School is for teaching facts. It's as simple as that!
Creationism is a myth; We know this because evolution is fact.
If schools were welcome to teach unproven things to children, then there'd be an absolute infinite amount of random made-up ideas to teach them.
It's good to teach religion in schools as long as religions are NOT taught as fact.

As a man who is a close friend of Sams in real life, I do question his beliefs a lot and I do get confused by his lack of Logic.
At the same time, its not good to hate someone for believing in that.

How did this guy ever pass his science exam!? Anyone who believes in creationism should automatically fail.

Whilst the creationists and ID supporters on these videos make me livid to no end, I understand the point of these videos is to give every viewpoint a voice and so as to be as objective and all inclusive as possible.

Sam however is infuriating beyond comprehension. At first, when he said he passed A level Biology, my first thoughts were on how the education system could have failed so badly. How could someone could get a recognized qualification in biological sciences without any understanding of evolution, most likely answering every question but any pertaining to that subject.

But when he said he passed with flying colours, and that he simply memorized all the facts and wrote them down, it somehow made much more and less sense. Provided he's not lying, how can someone be fully aware of the facts and yet misrepresent so vastly?! How can someone be so willingly ignorant? The answer is obvious; indoctrination by his parents/clergy or whoever.

This might go to explain why organisations like Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute have PHD scientists in their midsts who demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in evolution. They have an agenda. They want to mislead. They are unreasonable.

Another example of an argument from authority .He's just saying because he has studied biology this exempts him from criticising his biblical view of things. I have also studied biology(A level human biology grade B ) yet I think my statements are still open for criticism. Check out this boys infallible book of fables just to see how accurate it really is. A good start is Mike Davis's book : An atheists guide to the new testament.

Sam, although your argument is flawed and misguided to say the least, I think that you have successfully highlighted a significant flaw in our education system. Those fantastic grades that you have acheived really don't signify any level of intelligence at all, only an ability to remember information that has been administered.