Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Young Earth Creationist Arguments

[@ClintsReptiles]

Over 1 HOUR AND 29 MINUTES of BONUS content from this video, exclusively for our Stinkin' Rad Fans on Patreon! Patreon is a great way to support Clint's Reptiles AND get awesome extras (including hundreds of other bonus videos)! www.patreon.com/posts/video-patreon-to-106186809

[@HassanMohamed-rm1cb]

Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a KZbin Videos all about the 🦥 Phylogeny Group Of Xenarthra (Edentata)🦥, such as Armadillos, Glyptodonts, Pampatheres, Anteaters, Tamanduas, Tree Sloths, Ground Sloths, And Aquatic Sloths on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍

[@HassanMohamed-rm1cb]

Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a KZbin Videos all about the 🥚Phylogeny Group Of Monotremes (Egg-Laying Mammals)🥚, such as Platypuses and Echidnas on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍

[@redschafer7804]

ya more drama for clicks i'll pass may be just stick to posting able the animals like you did with the Iguana video

[@areallyshortbrontothere]

@@redschafer7804 I think I had an aneurysm trying to read this

[@heliumhubcryptocollective9337]

next theory to investigate, the theory that evolution had been going on this planet but human development was fast tracked by aliens approximately 200K years ago. All hail the big giant head

[@aspermwhalespontaneouslyca8938]

Imagine being so wholesome you get into religious issues and you receive almost no hate. You are a great man, Clint.

[@Pohgrey]

Yup, tho I do note that the only "hate" I'm aware of being directed toward him was being featured on "Whack an Atheist..." Even tho he isn't an atheist...

[@beclouise8686]

Agreed. He doesn't come at it from a place driven by emotion and defense.

[@XraynPR]

Sort by new on the last vido about this, theres a few people with the usual creationist arguments and being mean

[@theaveragefloridaman3655]

He's coming at it as nice as possible, and just slapping them in the face with irrefutable facts, one after another. Fukn GOAT

[@danielt1337]

To be fair, he's basically only talking about evolution/science and not theology. Pretty sure Clint is a Mormon (could be wrong), but if he is and started claiming the inerancy of the book of Mormon, both atheists and evangelical protestants would certainly have a problem with it..

[@iluvtacos1231]

As an atheist and someone who frequents anti-YEC KZbin channels (Gutsick Gibbon, DapperDino, Creation Myths, etc), it's very refreshing to hear a Christian who very clearly knows their stuff also going "no, evolution is real".

[@JediMasterEzio]

Now, we just need this Christian to apply that evidence based thought process towards the religion itself...

[@antoniaweber8074]

I used to too but I only know gutsick gibbon of these, for me it is more viced rino, prohed of zod and forest Valky

[@sunnijo]

@@JediMasterEzioDude, don’t be like that

[@iluvtacos1231]

​@@JediMasterEzio Calm down there, edgelord.

[@iluvtacos1231]

​@@antoniaweber8074 Can't believe I forgot Forrest. He's great. VR and PoZ are also great and I watch them a lot too, but they're atheism in general channels.

[@cristianespinal9917]

"It's just a theory," says everyone who doesn't know the technical definition of "theory" and uses it interchangeably with the colloquial definition.

[@blitsriderfield4099]

And also matpat

[@mell5955]

it's so funny because, at least at my school, anyone who took the flippin' sophomore-level class, biology, learned the definition of a theory and such other terms.

[@cristianespinal9917]

@@mell5955 theoretically, they did anyway

[@SweetOdinsRavens]

​@mell5955 nobody at your school paid attention to science, I can promise you that. The vast majority of people don't care enough to remember STEM courses from before college.

[@michaelmay5453]

It's specifically a scientific theory.

[@marclawrence5321]

If Tucker Carlson said it was sunny I'd bring an umbrella.

[@pierrelabounty9917]

Ridiculous statement. No you wouldn't.

[@pierrelabounty9917]

Unless you normally do so. Just in case.

[@marclawrence5321]

@@pierrelabounty9917 Sometimes people use hyperbole to emphasize a point. In this case the point was that I find Tucker Carlson very untrustworthy.

[@andersdroid]

And I totally agree with you. Evil guy who’s Putin’s useful idiot.

[@johnrockyryan]

😂

[@gregwillis4001]

I was walking in Clint's Reptile Room and saw a lizard on his hind legs telling jokes. I turned to Clint and said, "That lizard is really funny!" Clint replied, "That's not a lizard. He's a stand-up chameleon."

[@testogel85]

get off the stage xD

[@lightningninja6905]

​@testogel85 Yeah, get off so the chameleon can crack jokes!

[@pantalonesdemuerto7960]

Take my like and get out

[@david2869]

badup-chhh!

[@kluk8284]

But Clint told us chameleons ARE lizards

[@kariscoyne1886]

Amazed that anyone was surprised you're religious, you have the strongest 'youth minister' energy I've ever seen, and that's including actual youth ministers

[@ClintsReptiles]

😂

[@OhhCrapGuy]

As an atheist that grew up Christian, I have NEVER trusted anyone that goes out of their way to tell people that they're religious. Every time I see a Bible passage quoted on a business card, I simply assume that the person is untrustworthy and likely using their supposed faith as a way to trick others into trusting them, or worse, believes that people that aren't their particular flavor of religious don't deserve to be treated with respect. On the other hand, I have found that if it only comes up when relevant, and only after a while, like with Clint? That person is, without exception, decent, kind, and trustworthy.

[@jiaswan22]

@@OhhCrapGuyAs a Christian, I 100% agree with you. Religion is a big part of my life, but I only mention it to people if it comes up naturally. People trying to forcibly announce their religion often are trying to appear the part because they don’t have the integrity to actually follow the values of their religion. I will give an exception for people whose job (be that actual employment or volunteer work) is their religion. (Nuns, monks, ministers, imams, service coordinator for a religion, etc). In that case, so much of their life revolves around religion that it just is what they talk about naturally.

[@guilherme2295]

@@OhhCrapGuy just like atheist take every opportunity they can to tell everyone they are atheist...like you just did.

[@markstyles1246]

It's, in the best and... cutest (yeah, I'll go with that) possible way, very, "How do you do, fellow Christians? Let's rap about Science!". And he shouldn't change that :-) .

[@middlemuse]

I wish I’d known Christians like you when I was young and struggling. My parents felt that evolution was such a dangerous idea that they denied me any substantial education after third grade. Young Earth Creationism very directly led to my educational neglect and abuse, and I’m still feeling the effects more than twenty years later.

[@ClintsReptiles]

I'm so sorry that this happened to you.

[@ladykoiwolfe]

I'm just glad that you're smart enough to realize this. You still have the ability to learn what they denied you.

[@markwood1159]

I can relate. I went to a private Christian school from 3rd through 8th grades, where I was taught the conspiracy-theory that Earth is about 6000 years old and that evolution is a lie. It wasn't until college that I learned what evolution actually means and I was truly angry about the lies I was taught. I also began to realize, it isn't even the theory of evolution that creationists disagree with; it's the actual _definition_ of evolution. They accept nearly every part of the theory, until you label it "evolution," which they're convinced means "monkeys give birth to humans." No matter how many times it's explained, they refuse to accept that what they call "adaptation" _is_ evolution.

[@JamesS805]

I’m sorry that happended to you. Young Earth Creationism has turned into a cult, and I’m glad you got out. May God bless you as you learn more.

[@saragarska6335]

I'm so sorry you weren't given more opportunities to learn. I remember learning that homeschooling isn't a thing in Germany because they believe that children have a right to education free from things like what you experienced (rightly or wrongly, I know the government determining what kids can learn is also a double edged sword, but I thought it was great that they take the approach that children have a right to education).

[@mindibun8160]

The amount of times I stopped cooking to just make faces and contemplate... I seriously realized and learned many things here. Please keep talking about this. This discussion NEEDS to happen. Bravo.

[@xxcl0n3xx]

Just here to join the "Atheists Who Support Clint" club. I don't let anyone's personal beliefs in the un-testable and un-provable change how I think about them. It's only when people turn their minds away from provable, testable information that I stop trusting their ability to reason.

[@jpe1]

Clint has clearly turned his mind away from the provable, he has openly said that he believes in God, so by your statement you should stop trusting his ability to reason. And I agree with you, people who turn their minds away from provable, testable information are hard to trust to reason correctly, and I no longer hold Clint in the same high regard as I did prior to his statement.

[@Hunterr8]

​@@jpe1I'm guessing you stayed 6ft away because "experts" told you to? Your pride is your downfall.

[@Hunterr8]

​@@jpe1your pride is your downfall.

[@jpe1]

@@Hunterr8 since I have no idea who you are or anything about you, your comment is both meaningless and irrelevant. My pride in what? What downfall? In what way do the two correlate? You have zero content on your channel yet you have 36 subscribers, that’s usually the hallmark of a fake account used as part of an influence campaign, yet I can’t guess what possible influence campaign would care about my comments 🤷‍♂️

[@LoafLobster]

@@jpe1That’s kind of an insane take. You’re the kind of guy to throw the baby out with the bath water. Clint clearly displays the ability to reason and he knows what he’s talking about. You don’t know Clint so you don’t know his reasonings or his beliefs. You’re the one making wild assumptions without evidence or reasoning. Plenty of scientists choose to follow a religion for plenty of good reasons.

[@spencerviggers1246]

Atheist here. That you believe in God makes this video MUCH more interesting. And thank you for being civil to both sides.

[@josue1996jc]

also an atheist here, altho i do not believe in creationism i do thinks there is something fishy in our DNA, i actually study genetics rigth now, and the ways our dna works is WAY to complex to have just spotaneusly emerged, maybe simpler forms of DNA could but the problem is that even the oldest single cells we know off have the same basic cellular functions as our own. for example the way the dna envelopes itself in a sphere when stored, in a way that a string can be pulled from anywhere and it won't ever tangle withing itself, that's a propiety that cant be found anywere else in the nature, and just like that one there are countles of those propertie+s in our DNA, some we re just discovering, like the fact that its own electric field and the ones on each particules that compose the dna have effects almost as important as the sequence itself. i have always thought life could just emerge using the same principles as evolution, but thats just wrong, the evolution is a byproduct of life itself but life has nothing to evolve from.

[@Paldasan]

FWIW as someone who is a Christian outside the whole US Evangelical socio-political complex very little of the teaching I have encountered promotes YEC and only slightly more OEC. Christians have been long aware (and have been the instigators through literary criticism) that the 2 creation accounts in Genesis are myths and not to be read literally.

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

There have always been plenty of people who were both religious and scientifically minded. Newton saw science as the way by which man could explore the works of God. And the guy who first proposed the big bang was an ordained priest. There's only really a conflict for people who insist on taking their scripture word-for-word as fact, and this literalism is a relatively new trend. I have no problem with Christians or any other religious people who accept science.

[@theodoricstevenson3905]

nearly most famous scientists were religious and created the science we have today. Atheist really only just joined the scientific community recently. But tend to be the loudest and most obnoxious. Keep setting a good example for the others.

[@jpe1]

⁠@@theodoricstevenson3905nice logic trap there, pre-ad-hominem attacking any argument against your position brought by atheists as being “obnoxious” and using “nearly most famous” as a modifier of “scientists” so that you can reject any counter-example as being insufficiently famous, or, if it’s someone inarguably famous like Einstein (who described himself using the words “agnostic” and “religious nonbeliever”) you can say that he’s an exception, not part of the “nearly most” that you claim. If I were more ambitious I would give a list of the Nobel prize winners in physics and chemistry, and their religious belief or lack thereof, and bring some actual data to this argument, but I very much doubt that any amount of data will change your thinking, you want to believe what you currently believe, facts be damned. And yes, I’m fully cognizant of the fact that you will dismiss this in its entirety for being “obnoxious.”

[@balenfalotico2283]

As an ex-evangelical agnostic atheist and as someone who was at one point a YEC, it’s pretty damn refreshing to hear a Christian call out these cultish science and reality deniers. All the power to you brother!! Keep up the good work!!

[@crow-dont-know]

Another great Christian creator that argues against Young Earth Creationism is Dr Joel Duff. On this topic, I also like Gutsick Gibbon, Dapper Dinosaur and Creation Myths, though they’re not Christian (though respectful of religious beliefs generally)

[@balenfalotico2283]

@@crow-dont-know Erica and Dapper are amazing!! I love them!!

[@normsti000]

Creationists seek to limit God to what men have written down.

[@theWinterWalker]

How does Evangelical + Agnostic + Atheist work? Are they all not contradictory of each other? No hate, as an Agnostic Apostate I'm genuinely curious. Thanks for your time. Oh, ex evangelical👌🏻 nevermind.😅

[@bigchungus6827]

@@theWinterWalker The definitions have become a bit muddied over the years, but you can be a gnostic or agnostic atheist. I'd argue both are subsets. Gnostic atheist is roughly "I don't believe in God, but I'm open to evidence opposing that", agnostic is "I don't believe in God, and I don't think meaningful evidence for his existence can exist", as I understand. How exactly evangelism ties into that, I'm unsure of.

[@blobleet]

I never thought a religious person could encorporate so well the idea of evolution into their beliefs, the world needs more people like you dude

[@saldiven2009]

The "evolution is just a theory" argument is proof that whoever is making that argument stopped paying attention in science class sometime around middle school.

[@matthewherzel264]

Unfortunately, there are entire networks of Christian schools that teach exactly that, including K-12 schools and accredited U.S. universities. I sat through actual high school science classes that argued that the world was around 6,000 years old, humans used to live for hundreds of years, ancient humans had sex with angels, a global flood is the cause of all extant geology, and "evolutionists" were purposefully indoctrinating children in dangerous demonic ideas. And yet it's evangelical Christians that claim our public schools are indoctrinating kids. Good grief.

[@AngelEmfrbl]

It sadly comes from the ignorant older generations whose science lessons were extremely poor.

[@saldiven2009]

@@AngelEmfrbl I'm 52, and I was taught the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law in the science context sometime prior to 10th grade. Back in the 80's, I had AP biology and physics. I think you'd be surprised how difficult college-prep level high school courses were 40 years ago. It isn't a matter of age or generation. It's a matter of being interested in learning. If you poke around enough on KZbin, you'll find plenty of 20-something Christians who parrot the same "evolution is only a theory" nonsense. Carlson doesn't know what the scientific definition of a "theory" is because knowing that definition would conflict with his chosen world view. I'm willing to bet that he's been informed of the actual meaning many times, but ignoring it allows him to avoid questioning his own beliefs.

[@daftwulli6145]

What is even funnier is how often I stumble across a creationist who claims to really have studied evolution (often even claiming they took college level classes), but the more the stjudied it the more things they found that wherhe completely illogical, ort based solely on assumptzions to save the theory. But as soon as you ask for examples they got nothing , and it becomes obvious very quickly they could not explain highschool level evolution to save their life. But this has been a pretty recent phenomenon at least at this scale. Usually I would see one every couple months , but now they are everywhere. I suspect some video went viral in their circles where they showed a fake discussion in which the creationist "wins" since "he knows way more about evolution then the atheist after studying it in college" or something, and now they think this woukld work in the real world. Or maybe it is because of this classroom series by AIG where a stjdent constantly exposes their atheist teacher, despite making argument that my 10 year old nephew could run rings arround. They shoud have read the comments, they got debunked so hard that half of the videos in the series had to turn of the comments.

[@CoryW-h3q]

Give me your best evidence right now for proof of demonstrated macro evolution ​@@daftwulli6145

[@bubbajenkins123]

All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. A pickle is a cucumber, but not all cucumbers are pickles. Not a perfect argument, but it is something a layperson can wrap their mind around

[@crow-dont-know]

A bird is a dinosaur in a similar way to a cat being a mammal.

[@otterylexa4499]

Not all pickles are cucumbers, although I will agree that all pickle(d cucumbers) are cucumbers. Pickling is a process which can be applied to any biological matter. A pickled beetroot is not a cucumber, a pickled egg is most definitely not. There's also sauerkraut (middle European pickled cabbage), kimchi (South-East Asian spicy pickled cabbage) and sillage (pickled grass for animal feed). There's a linguistic tendency to drop the specific parts of a description which I find distressing. It might be my bias but it seems more prevalent in US English. I see it also in phrases like "vehicles, busses, trains and planes" where the other items are all types of vehicle and vehicle is made to stand for something like personal road vehicle. ETA: otherwise I agree with you, I just felt the need to be pedantic about pickles.

[@ciarz_]

​@@otterylexa4499 If someone offered me a pickle and then served me a pickled eel I would punch them. All jokes aside I have never heard anyone refer to a dish as a pickle aside from pickled cucumbers, but my experience with English is also limited.

[@otterylexa4499]

@@ciarz_ I would expect "a pickle" to be Branston's Pickle or Pickalily or something similar (a spiced pickled medley of chopped vegetables), although I am aware of the US use.

[@crow-dont-know]

Yeah, having grown up in the UK, if somebody asked me to pass them the pickle, I’d be handing over a jar of Branston, not a Gherkin. If my Indian mother asked me, I’d be passing a jar of Brinjal Pickle.

[@philgrills7070]

Furious atheist here. Once again, you didn't fail to deliver... great educational content for me and my kiddo to consume. I never understood why parents got irritated when their children constantly asked, "why?" I think it's the best question. Keep up the good work!

[@CainXVII]

I guess if you aren't curious yourself, it gets hard when your kids ask why. Sometimes my dad just made up answers though

[@adnanzia9167]

@@philgrills7070 What part do you think prevents you from thinking that there must be a higher being, cultural, family, media influence etc. interesting to know

[@ruthl3ssstudio163]

I wish my kids asked "why" more often. More often than not, Im sitting there trying to explain how things work with them saying "I dont care!" lol Please care while I have the ability and resources to teach you!!!!!

[@Fellow_Skeptic]

Fellow theist skeptic here. If you don’t mind me asking why are you an atheist. If you would like I can prove why I am a theist logically. I mean I am a skeptic so “why” is always my most asked question.

[@philgrills7070]

@@Fellow_Skeptic Don't mind at all! I'm an atheist largely for one reason- there is no evidence for the existence of any god. Storybooks and anecdotes do not meet the criteria for what we call evidence. The question of existence itself implies only what we can derive from it, which is why I'm perfectly content with all my theist friends having their various deities. To be perfectly honest, if I die tomorrow and find myself on a different level of existence I'd probably chuckle and proclaim, "Ah! Ya got me!" Quickly followed by a million "why"s.

[@robaliberti7488]

Thanks!

[@funpheonix9752]

I’m an ex-Christian atheist and I don’t get atheists like the ones who completely abandoned you and your channel. I don’t like religion that much in general… but as long as the believers are like you, they’re awesome! I’m glad there’s a Christian evolutionary biologist out there debunking creationists.

[@cautemoc4624]

I mean, his video views haven't really gone down so the people who supposedly abandoned his channel either didn't actually do it or are such a small number they are statistically insignificant

[@Thatchxl]

Yeah. As an atheist, I really don’t have a problem with non-fundamentalist Christians. Honestly, I think it’s important to have these kinds of spokespeople too. There’s bound to be some fundamentalists that won’t even pay any mind to what an atheist says, but will listen to a Christian scientist. I believe there’s far less harm in evolution/science accepting Christians than fundamentalists.

[@drewharrison6433]

As of right now, my two favorite Christians are John Green and Clint Laidlaw

[@syrupybrandy2788]

But atheism doesn't make a lot of money. If you became a televangelist you can easily scam millions out of your gullible faithful.

[@spracketskooch]

You say that now. I wonder if you'll say the same if the difference in belief leads you to come into conflict on another topic?

[@LMoM0MoM]

I am retired from an organization that frequently had to go before courts to request legal decisions. In preparation we had to meet with our lawyers. In one instance, the lawyer persisted in undermining every argument we had. One of the younger members of our team was becoming increasingly, and visibly frustrated. At the end of the meeting, the lawyer told us to come back to her with better arguments. The young team member said, “She’s supposed to be on our side! Why is she cutting down all our arguments?!” I explained to him that her job was to take our arguments to the court. She wants the best possible arguments to present to the court. To get those, she had to think like the judge. It was her job to get us to really think through what we wanted from the court and why. She wanted us to defeat (disprove) every argument we developed, until we had the best possible arguments that would be very difficult for the judge to deny. And yes, it was sometimes frustrating. But in the end, we had excellent, persuasive arguments. All because we made ourselves understand the opposite positions, and address them before our lawyer had to take them to the court. Rather like your steel-man positions! Thank you for this!

[@crow-dont-know]

Sadly, YEC organisations like Answers in Genesis only strengthen their arguments to the level that their largely science illiterate audience will judge, so regularly trot out the most flimsy straw men you can possibly find.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

​@@crow-dont-knowwhile the people working for aig know it. they actually have credentials. so its known that they are lying by people who know the science.

[@unknown5150variable]

So you had a job that necessitated challenging constant rebuttals to your arguments and this was the first time your associate was up against such scrutiny? Was this their first case? I would think this would be par fir the course. If it wasn't it probably should have been, no?

[@LMoM0MoM]

@@unknown5150variable Yes, he was fresh out of university with a masters in GIS. And yes it was the first time he was on our team. Turned out that he was a pretty bright kid, and once the logic was explained to him he rose to the occasion pretty quickly! He had excellent technical skills, beyond some of our well-seasoned techs, and they were no dumb bunnies! But he tended to be impatient with people who lacked his skills and understanding. I’m glad to say that as he matured, he became an invaluable member of our team.

[@cognitivebreak8312]

Trying to prove yourself wrong, rather than trying to prove yourself right, is one of the fundamentals of science. Neat to see it coming up in other settings! The idea is, you design experiments to try to *disprove* your hypothesis. If it 'succeeds', then great, you know you were wrong! If the experiment 'fails', you've eliminated *one* of the ways in which you could have been wrong, but that doesn't mean you were right! Then you design a new experiment and null-hypothesis and keep going forever :p ... I Might be getting my terms/wires crossed, but I think that's the idea. There's a bunch of other rules for doing science that probably apply to law. In both cases, you're trying to prove things to people who cannot trust you.

[@rauc6788]

As a former militant atheist, now a far calmer agnostic atheist, I greatly appreciate your approach. This is how you create a dialog and teach not only evolution, not only science but any topic. This is a breath of fresh air and a wonderful masterclass of bridging the gap between sides.

[@mathiasrryba]

You're evolving, the next step is becoming an igtheist.

[@johngavin1175]

​@@mathiasrrybaThat's where I'm heading personally to be honest

[@spracketskooch]

"I don't know" is the only honest answer to the question of the existence of God. You'd have to check all of reality, essentially be God, in order to be sure either way.

[@huizhechen3779]

You can't be both an agnostic & an atheist. You must choose one or the other. They're mutually exclusive.

[@johngavin1175]

@@huizhechen3779 No,they are not. You can be a gnostic theist,an agnostic theist,gnostic Atheist, or agnostic Atheist. This was relayed to me by some of the Atheist KZbinrs I watch.

[@kaileebailee23]

I'm sorry other atheists were being disrespectful online. I went through an "all religion is bad" phase but I think examples of religious people being kind, progressive, and intellectually honest helped me get out of that! Thank you for the good example, I'm gonna watch so many of your videos!

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

I still think religion is bad as it messes up your self image and how you perceve others... "we're all born Sinners and need forgiveness" or worse. There are many great and fabulous christians, but they would be awesome, lovely persons with any religion or none at all, it's not their belief that makes them kind, generous, patient or wise, but they are that way while living with belief. I'd wish to see them free of this cruel mental prison to be great people and unshackled by bad worldviews. But i'd never force them to change either, violence and abuse do not give you freedom.

[@NeonJ1]

It just doesn’t make sense. Like as a scientist, he must know that there can only be one truth. And with all the religions out there, which one is correct. Also, if faith happens to be the reason he believes in god, does he use this methodology to explain science. A religious scientist seems hypocritical.

[@GlassShardBallPit]

A minute in, when Clint smirks at the use of "theory" and visibly has to hold his words back 😂

[@Hogstrictors]

I noticed that too, haha. The educational system and its governing body has really failed our people.

[@JoeyP946]

@@Hogstrictors it's only getting worse it seems Hamas supporters, communists and anarchists seem to have increased in universities

[@GlassShardBallPit]

It's true. Public schools should be so good that private schools are unnecessary. I'm worried our lack of urgency with education is starting to show it's head in adults.

[@ladykoiwolfe]

I'm not sure that guy went to a public school. I feel like he probably went to a Catholic school or something like that.

[@mwperk02]

​@@GlassShardBallPitpublic schools in America are currently suffering from many issues. Religious infiltration just being one small but very important issue. Then there's the emphasis on simply regurgitating information over teaching actual thinking skills that allow one to learn, underfunding, underpaid staff, many very poorly thought out policies around things like bullying and more.

[@davidhayden6481]

"I don't wanna be part of this clade anymore!" "You can grow up and start your own clade, but you'll always be part of my clade" -Vin Diesels ancestors, probably

[@danielfitzpatrick4873]

Never turn your back on clade doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

[@wyattmiller9539]

​@@danielfitzpatrick4873 Never turn your back on phylogenetic cladistics.

[@magellan6439]

There it is ​@@wyattmiller9539

[@Shadowbaned]

Vin Kerogen

[@timosarkkinen6610]

You're a lizard, Harry

[@Number1drizzilefan]

As an atheist, it's great seeing someone who holds scientific and religious views without compromising either. Keep at it Clint

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

Evolution is only really a problem for the scripture literalists. If you can accept that the text is largely allegorical, then evolution isn't in conflict with a personal belief in a deity.

[@Hunterr8]

So like most all Christians.

[@philw6056]

@@Hunterr8 Yep. Like most christians. But about half of the christians in the us don't believe in evolution. And christian schools, christian homeschooling materials and christian apologists are part of the loud anti-evolution and anti-science minority.

[@AstronomyAdmirer]

@@Hunterr8it really depends on where you live I live in the south and mostly everyone is a YEC

[@jackwhitbread4583]

As an atheist it's hypocritical to hold both views as they opposed each other vehemently. This guy is clearly a clown if he's a believer

[@markozupanc6865]

That's why we call it 'a belief'. Why would I stop liking your work because you believe in something I don't? Science doesn't care what you believe in or what you don't believe in. I would prefer if you didn't mention this at all however I also get it why you had to mention it... not mentioning it would just be my personal preference, because it really doesn't matter to me. So keep up the good work ... all the best. Regards.

[@josephsalaba8290]

Really appreciate the hammering home the "I am a Christian" point. I was one of those atheists that had a knee jerk reaction to feel distrustful in the last video, and I remember feeling really weird that I had that reaction because up and to that point I had completely loved your content. It was a really important learning moment for me that you described perfectly in this followup.

[@SoIstDassAlso]

He didn't say that he was Christian. He said he believed in god. Which god?

[@necroseus]

​@@SoIstDassAlso True, however it's a pretty fair assumptions that it is an Abrahamic deity. All are monotheistic and quite common.

[@monodescarado]

I also bulked slightly, and felt a little embarrassed after. That being said, I think it's a natural reaction. There is an amount of cognitive dissonance taking place when pairing the teachings of the Bible and the reality of evolution. It's hard to follow rational arguments from someone that has inherent irrationality, regardless of how nice they are, and how well they know and represent their field. While I certainly won't stop watching Clint's content, I would love to know more about how he can square the teachings of the 'good book' and an 'all-loving creator', with the 600-700 million years of brutal suffering via extinctions (99% of all creatures that have lived are extinct) that's taken place prior to God's supposed chosen ones arriving on this Earth. Not to mention the fact that the Bible fails to mention any of it, despite man only being alive for around 0.0066% of Earth's history.

[@necroseus]

@@monodescarado Believing in God =/= Believing Bible Literalism. He could just as well be one who interprets all the books as allegories for teaching important lessons/ morals. We just have no idea! Clerification would be nice, sure, but I think it's perfectly normal for him to have such a disposition.

[@monodescarado]

@@necroseus This is fine. I get that a person may not be a Bible literalist. However, believing in a faith, especially something like Christianity comes with particular baggage: ie concepts of morality; the notion of God wanting what’s best for us; the belief that God wants a relationship with us, etc. These concepts are still challenged by hundreds of millions of years of creatures coming into existence, suffering and going extinct before apes started standing upright.

[@tay-lore]

I have so much respect for the composure Clint maintains when presenting his arguments. He's such a fantastic scientific communicator and educator!

[@taylortheturtle]

That's exactly what I was thinking, he's so good at this!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i don't. christianity isn't true, he's promoting a lie. and besides given the choice between you and god who do you think will get clint's vote?

[@tay-lore]

@HarryNicNicholas where in any of his arguments was he promoting christianity?... I have respect for him presenting his arguments in a way that can actually be receptive for people who have been misinformed throughout their entire lives. I have respect for it, because I'm not able to present evidence to those sorts of people in such a patient and understanding way. That sort of communication is very important for educating people who are fervently resistant to that education

[@claytonharting9899]

1:20 the way Clint goes from politely listening to “woah man hold on now” when the guy says “why it’s still a theory” just kills me

[@ClintsReptiles]

😅

[@russellharrell2747]

That’s the point where Tuck-Tuck fully exposed his science illiteracy.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@russellharrell2747 or his adherence to a belief that is severely limited in its acceptance of reality... i don't even understand why, his family has sunk a beautiful TV Millionaires house's worth of money into his education, he COULD know much better than this. Okay, he may genuinely be too benighted to understand anything of it, but that's true for a horrible lot of things as shown in his programmes.

[@tboggs13]

​@@russellharrell2747No, I think that is just Tucker taking advantage of the ignorance of his followers. Just like YEC "scientists", there is no way they don't know the true definition of a scientific theory.

[@russellharrell2747]

@@tboggs13 that’s right, I forget that the anti-intellectual sentiment in the US has been carefully cultivated for decades, and folks like Tucker love to play to that.

[@elijahself6440]

I really appreciate your effort to communicate science with really lay language and keep everything engaging. I am an evolutionary biology major in college and really like how well your helping to bridge the gap between the science community and the general public.

[@HeyItsLeonPowalski]

"Adaptation" in the way he's using it feels very vague, but I suspect this is just a rehash of the "micro vs macro evolution" stance, which Creationists have used in the past. (e.g: "Sure, Dogs can diversify into different breeds but a fish never crawled on land and turned into a human") edit: I see later this exact point is brought up near the end

[@MaeljinRajah]

Exactly he's a dishonest piece of s*** because adaptation and evolution are the same thing. After all, isn't the definition of evolution adaptation through random mutation and natural selection over an extremely prolonged period of time😂 so it is not an opinion to go. I believe in adaptation and not evolution. It is actually impossible to believe in one without the other unless you are an extremely dishonest person.

[@casualsleepingdragon8501]

Don't you mean elephants giving birþ to pine trees

[@Potacintvervs]

​@@casualsleepingdragon8501 I respect the thorn, even though I have no hope that it will catch on.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

it's clearly something Tuckums has taken from some other source and blindly adopted as his stance. No autonomous thougth was involved in that process. Seriously, if Joe "let's hear the crystal healing shaman's point of view" Rogan runs circles around your argument you MUST realize you did mess up badly...

[@iwkaoy8758]

Wolves two Chihuahuas,foxes, coyotes, and Jack coals is (De-evolving) This is Janet tick regression. Janet tick regression is called Mike crow evolution inn neo darwinist terminologies. Theist except Mike crow evolution bee cause it's a other word four Janet tick regression. It does ant mean Wii bee leave inn (evolutionism) a universal common ancestory. A other example - aye except the mountain-chicken label bee cause it's a other word for frog. It does ant mean aye except a mountain-chickens as a bird bee cause it has a bird name. Just bee cause Mike crow evolution has the word evolution inn its name does ant mean aye except neo darwinism.

[@pixiestyx]

Very much appreciate the way you repeat the arguments for clarity before providing rebuttals. I wish that all people responding to arguments (on either side) would take the time to make sure they understand exactly what is being argued and ensure that they address each argument. Hope you do more of these videos!

[@TransformersTalkRAW]

Except he's not doing so in good faith. He's subtlety altering certain verbiage if you listen closley to both sides (which I actually did with pen & paper). Therefore he's altering a bit of meaning with the opposing information in this video alone. In short hes misrepresenting their own arguments at times.

[@pixiestyx]

@@TransformersTalkRAW Do you have any specific examples you can share?

[@asull06]

@@pixiestyx he doesn't

[@Pingwn]

I see the misinterpretation that "a theory is a hypothesis that has been substantiated" many times before, I suspect it is a response to the notion theories are unsubstituted while in reality they are the highest level explanation that you can have. Thank you for addressing this.

[@paulglennie1991]

Yh People tend to miss understand that a scientific theory is very different from the everyday use of theory. They also fail to understand that many things in our everyday life are based on theory, so if they deny one theory they would have to deny them all including music, cooking and driving.

[@lamaglama6231]

Unfortunately explaining the difference almost never helps. You hear these arguments over and over again from the same people. One could assume they don't understand but I think they just don't care and want to spread misinformation because it helps their cause.

[@paulglennie1991]

@@lamaglama6231 that's very true, the amount of times I hade science deniers say oh that's just someone's opinion even though I use proper sources that explains what a scientific theory is and how it difers from the layman's definition. The only time it helps is when people actually have a general interest in learning about science

[@TheSpiritombsableye]

Unfortunately this isn't always as well described in schools. The explanation given here does provide greater clarity as what constitutes a theory. This probably isn't helped by the idea that science is ever changing as information about the world around us becomes anew. I still remember learning that panda( bear)s were more closely related to raccoons. After being looked at weirdly for such a statement, I asked them for a moment while I researched the most recent understanding of its taxonomy. I like being right but I like being wrong more.

[@Ofallthings089]

I will say that in social sciences like psychology a theory is more like the definition of a hypothesis used in biological science.

[@kellyroper5256]

I LOVE THESE VIDEOS, these are my comfort videos, and they give me hope for our future. If even a handful of people watch these and understand them then I can die happy knowing that at least some of humanity will be ok.

[@eliharris7300]

"you can still be on the right side of an argument and make a terrible case for your side" dude that's amazing

[@neepsmcfly4176]

Yeah, he couldn't have come up w a better example. Speed of light, indeed.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

is it? probably the most common thing in argument.

[@Ermington321]

I still can’t believe we haven’t got over the it’s just a theory thing, when we know the a scientific theory and the definition of theory isn’t the same

[@gabri41200]

In the very same sentence he says "theory of adaptation is clearly true", you can't expect much coherence of that of people.

[@davehaynes9409]

The interesting thing I find about YEC and theories is they dont seem to have a problem with electromagnetic theory, quantum theory,information theory,special relativity or germ theory, just seems to be evolution. Its almost like they intentionally misrepresent things to fool people

[@RichWoods23]

Some people readily forget what they were taught at school, after a few decades of not needing to use it. I struggle to recall any concept or process in chemistry more complex than what I was taught when I was 12 or 13, even though I studied it to 18. Maths and physics, however, have been of regular use to me during my career so I've forgotten far less of them and read up on far more since.

[@zombiekurt]

You see the same phenomenon in psychology, where scientific terminology and symptoms are completely misunderstood and disregarded by laymen, because the word happens to have a different colloquial definition (take disorganised thinking as a schizophrenia symptom vs what a layman means when they say disorganised, as it's one I can personally attest to - in schizophrenia, it's a debilitating symptom that can even turn your thoughts entirely into word-salad and gibberish, it's definitely not "I'm a bit forgetful and messy"; it can vary in severity, even in one person over time, up to and including rendering you unable to coherently express your feelings and ideas). Even as somebody who has that symptom, it's difficult to describe, and I don't fault laymen for not comprehending the experience - that said, it's the self-assured denial of one's own ignorance that I think encapsulates the phenomenon, the "I know what the word theory/disorganised/etc means, so you're just [insert assertions of ulterior motives or stupidity on your part here]", which makes it so difficult to help people get past the fact that a word just has two meanings, or to help them use it as it applies and is intended by those they're trying to talk with. You also see it with people who argue "I can't be homophobic, I'm not scared of gay people", because they don't know that the suffix -phobic means fear, hate, or various kinds of aversion depending on the context and/or field of study (a good example being hydrophobic molecules, which clearly aren't afraid of water, due to being molecules that don't have brains), and/or they're unwillingly to have a conversation based on that definition for whatever reason. I find it especially frustrating because, as mentioned, it directly inhibits my attempts to express my mental health symptoms to people, and that's doubly annoying when the very symptom they're refusing to properly discuss beyond a colloquial definition inhibits my ability to express myself; but it's still frustrating even when it's something as simple and, ultimately, irrelevant to my life as a random news anchor refusing to acknowledge that the word "theory" does not mean "relatively unsubstantiated or unsupported" when it's being used in this context. I don't want to assume bad faith of people, or accuse them of only saying it because they don't want to acknowledge, respect, address, or otherwise accept what you're actually saying, but I have to admit that I often find myself having a hard time believing that this many people are this closed off to the sentence "words can mean more than one thing, especially in different contexts or fields of study" - perhaps people really genuinely just have mental blocks around the idea, but when somebody's career relies on undermining the credibility of scientific theories, or when their refusal to make allowances for you relies on undermining the severity of your symptoms (eg teachers not wanting to send me copies for me to do the lesson when I was well, since I couldn't understand at all on the day), I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel like maybe there's a little more to the situation than just not understanding that rock can be a type of music or a stone, and that you'd sound like a fool if you went "I know what rock is, and that boulder doesn't even have a guitar". Ultimately, that is what they're essentially saying, and I'm so tired of it being such a prevalent argument technique.

[@zombiekurt]

Oh gosh, that reply got a tad long, I'm sorry.

[@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV]

As an atheist saying Clint doesn't have any credibility because he believes in god is stupid. You were perfectly content with what he was saying before, and he's just educating people on evolution. Good teachers don't bring their personal beliefs into what they're teaching. And no matter which way you slice it, Clint is an amazing teacher! PS.: It kinda reminded me of a teacher of godsdienst in secondary school. Great teacher, he thought us about a lot of different religions, beliefs and life philosophies. Once we were having a conversation about the decline of Christianity in my country, when I expressed I thought that was a good thing he looked a bit disappointed. Then I remembered that this was a Christian school I was on (not that you'd notice, it was only really Christian by name), and the I'm pretty sure that teacher was Christian. He was so good at teaching about religions, I totally forgot he was part of one himself (makes sense for perhaps the best school I've been on. And I've been on a lot). So it is totally possibly for people to teach without getting their personal beliefs involved. I'm certain that Clint can do that too, if not better.

[@AshironDerigarStudios]

your talking about tankies the same kind of people that despite not believing in God want a government that is somehow omnipotent and all commanding. I know what these people are they just arent worth it

[@Adventist1997]

As a creationist myself, I couldn't have said it better. ❤

[@ishathakor]

there's a brand of atheist out there that assume anyone even remotely religious or who believes in anything they consider irrational is an idiot who should be disregarded and i think they're doing far more harm to the discourse than they realize. especially with something like religion like there are millions of religious scientists who don't make unsubstantiated claims and do good research and so on and also believe in a god or gods.

[@monodescarado]

I absolutely agree with the notion that Clint is a great teacher. I especially like the way in which he breaks down arguements in this video by re-iterating them first, picking out main ideas and then fact-checking them. It's a neat and respectful style of argumentation. However.... There must be a level of cognitive dissonance at play here. I would love for Clint to one day explain how he can square certain contradictions that exist between his knowledge and his faith (and there are a bunch).

[@thesnatcher3616]

​ @monodescarado Two reasons. One is that following Christian doctrine does not neccesitate the denial of science(look up the Nicene Creed, none of it says "thou shalt deny science" or "thou shalt believe every word of the bible is literally and factually true, even the obvious metaphors and literary devices".), And two, is that a variety of church fathers and churches in the past have constantly pushed and supported scientific discoveries(not to mention hardly anyone back in even the middle ages took the creation story literally, the viewpoint of YEC came about quite recently). Not to mention, the Catholic church greeted the theory with open arms, and Anglican churches published pamphlets explaining the theory to the masses. Darwin himself stated that he didn't think Evolution ruled out the existence of God. Christians do go through a lot of cognitive dissonance(as with all people with any type of worldview), but the compatibility of science and religion is definately not a primary one(you would be better off going to some historical accounts or the reliabiltiy of the gospels, or whether or not the biblical authors were polytheistic or something). I can't believe people are still holding to the whole "conflict thesis" view that's not taken seriously by any historian or scholar of religion ever.

[@brianlasley6437]

LOVE the concept of a "steel man." In grad school now, super helpful for constructing counter-arguments.

[@herbertdonascimento1312]

It's refreshing seeing someone explaining evolution in such a polite, respectful and clear way. Keep up the amazing work!

[@margaretmoore5696]

Clint, do humans come from monkeys?

[@margaretmoore5696]

What were lizards millions of years ago before they were lizards?

[@RyanWelke]

@@margaretmoore5696nothing existed millions of years ago.

[@margaretmoore5696]

I agree, Ryan. Just trying to get others thinking.​@RyanWelke

[@RyanWelke]

@@margaretmoore5696 that’s great 😁 👍

[@conlon4332]

The "lizards stay lizards" thing sounds like another way of saying you can't evolve out of a clade, which is true.

[@matyaskassay4346]

yeah, but the key difference is that lizards weren't always lizards.

[@crow-dont-know]

@@matyaskassay4346 it’s not a difference, they’re stating the same thing: the law of monophyly

[@livewire2759]

@@matyaskassay4346 Well, yes, lizards have always been lizards... they were never not lizards. Something else that wasn't a lizard existed before it mutated into lizards. After it became a lizard, everything else that mutated from that first lizard have been lizards. The controversy is over whether the first lizard magically appeared on earth one day, or it mutated from something else that existed already.

[@Llortnerof]

@@livewire2759 What if the first lizard was a wizard that came from another world? Or a wizzard, but then he'd probably have fled already and lost a sandal.

[@iwkaoy8758]

​@@crow-dont-knowclade means descendents,So you Kent no longer descend from a other create. If a hue men gave birth two a octopus, thats knot a knew clade bee cause it came from a hue men. Creationist never said you change clades,that's a strawman. Creationist say, you Kent change families. You Ken breed wolves two Chihuahuas,but knot wolves two tasmanian tigers.

[@show-me-orion]

Hi Clint! I’m so grateful for you and for these videos. I’m a Christian biology education researcher working on teaching undergraduates how to communicate about science! You are such an excellent model of how to approach this type of communication with empathy and good faith. I also appreciate so much that you are willing to state your faith in these videos, because it’s critical in helping other Christians understand that they don’t have to choose between the identities of Christian and Scientist. I use your videos as a starting point for students who talk to me about their struggles with evolution acceptance! Your dissertation was actually super influential for me and I’m glad you’re also doing this work on this very public platform!

[@RyanWelke]

You’re right, science and Christianity does go together, but evolution and Christianity doesn’t go together.

[@show-me-orion]

@ That depends entirely on a lot of different factors. There are many Christian scientists who accept the evidence for evolution, and who find compatibility between their faith and evolution- myself included. The two do not have to be in conflict.

[@abyss7539]

I mean honestly, depending on your particular beliefs, "God" or belief in any god can answer unanswerable questions: purpose of life, life after death, etc. As an atheist, my biggest issue with Religion is when it spits in the face of real science. Like geology, evolution, physics, etc. So I can appreciate someone who's religious that says "Modern science is correct, but my belief doesn't conflict at all". Then, it hurts nothing and doesn't contribute to misinformation or pseudoscience. Cool perspective to see Clint :)

[@angelajoosten9746]

Thanks from a fellow Christian who also believes in evolution and an old earth. I am so glad your channel exists. It is truly fascinating.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

if you're christian can you remind god he can't just go around killing people and burning them alive for eternity just because they disagree with him, we have rights. and while you're at it, cold fusion, if god isn't going to do anything about putin (heart attack or something that looks natural), if he's not going to stop the war, (when did he ever stop a war) then the least he can do is hint as to how to get cold fusion working - has he seen my electricity bills since the ukraine debacle started, there's a love eh. don't be pushy though, god has a short fuse.

[@zachg8822]

How can you possibly believe the God story?

[@nathancook2852]

@@zachg8822 Maybe cause there are still issues with abiogenesis. And god isn't testable of provable. Who cares if they believe in a god as long as they don't deny the science.

[@zachg8822]

@@nathancook2852 But I want to. But I seem to have some kind of truth seeking disposition in my character/personality. I want to believe. There are many Gods born of a virgin and all that jazz. Earth is a shitpizza and I didnt ask to be born. 😵

[@angelajoosten9746]

@@zachg8822 Because of a myriad of reasons that a youtube comment can't really cover, but I can say that the more I learn about the world and our universe the more I believe in a creator.

[@Mortarius]

As someone raised Catholic, science has always been a point of contention for me when it comes to religion. Young Earth Creationism and other Christian Sciences have always seemed so disingenuous to me that they actually pushed me away from faith the more I was taught of it. However, when I did my own research on the subject, I eventually found that the official Catholic stance is that science does not and should not run counter to our beliefs. Apparently the church itself acknowledges that the different books in the Bible are written by many different authors in different genres. So we consider Genesis as allegory, and a lot of the science denial that has seeped into many members of the Catholic church actually comes from overarching pervasive American Puritanism. Finding this out allowed me to stay a Catholic, because personally, being able to believe in God should not require me to turn off my brain.

[@napoleonfeanor]

Yes, the RCC has long accepted scientific truth as it has always seen some parts as allegorical. The Church is actively funding research as well. The science denial mostly comes from literalist denominations. Darwin himself wasn't an atheist but unitarian. There were also atheist and deists who embraced (but didn't understand) evolution early on to attack the Church. Generally, God is the ultimate cause and He created the physical world with its properties. I hold the view that we cannot ever prove of disprove God scientifically. Science shows us more and more about this physical realm.

[@Neogeddon]

My churches growing up were always very very staunchly puritan and YEC. I remember we had a guest speaker come in once who tried making the argument that constantly arguing over evolution and the age of the earth is distracting from the actual message of the text, and that "the Bible is God's word" does not mean we should blindly ignore the context of when it was written. He was not popular and did not come back a second time haha

[@Mortarius]

@@Neogeddon I'd probably be an atheist if I grew up in a church like that.

[@anniesama5729]

It's rough! My family is Catholic, but my mom likes listening to the Christian radio which are almost all evangelical, and they often have those answers in Genesis on. Unless you specifically seek out Catholic stuff, you usually find Protestant answers. And let's face it, Catholics are behind at making things fun.

[@boxsterman77]

Yes. The usual source for religious guidance and dogma in Protestantism is solo scriptura, or Only Scripture. By that, it means that protestants hold that there is no need to look elsewhere than the Bible to know how you are to live a life in accordance with God's design. This became a thing because, for nearly 1000 years, the Church restricted even the possession of a bible. Why did they do that? Well for one, they studied the Bible and they appreciated that it was chock full of inconsistencies, contradictions, codes and practices, arcane or archaic languages. And as any modern, earnest Biblical Scholar can attest, the Bible is not an easy lift. that were inconsistent with the direction toward which the Church wanted its flock to go, etc. So they presented snippets of it at readings during the Mass. All that ended when Martin Luther translated the Bible to German, and this became the source of the Geneva Bible (the one the Pilgrims brought to America) and one of the sources of the King James Bible. Suddenly the cat was out of the bag.

[@MonsieurFeshe]

Right off the bat, I just love how well you can represent someone's beliefs without straw manning them at all!

[@Fade2GrayOG]

When the facts are on your side, you can steelman your opponents.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

​@@Fade2GrayOGwell. even if the facts are unknowingly not on your side. honest people wil still at least try to steel man the oppositions arguments.

[@Adventist1997]

​@@theflyingdutchguy9870 You'd think so, but even when you do, they hate you for the fact that you disagree with them.

[@iklo7476]

As someone who used to have these debates all the time with YEC, this is the best explanation of Evolutionary theory I've ever seen. Super educational and non combative. I love it!

[@jacoblebaron9127]

As a Christian, and somebody who also believes in evolution, I often find myself caught in the middle arguing with both sides. This video is such a helpful resource to better articulate my position to others. I share your passion of showing that it’s reasonable to believe in God and science! Also, you’re the reason I got a False Water Cobra a couple years back! Keep doing your thing Clint I’m routing for you!

[@pierrelabounty9917]

But you don't have to accept evolution to accept the scientific method. Obviously! You might have to embrace one or both to teach in some university by their protocols. It is a religious position, because it first must be believed in to be embraced. Religion is what ever people live by in fact and belief. Atheists have to believe there is no God to proove. How they come to such a conclusion is always a non scientific conclusion, outside methodology but not explanation.

[@pierrelabounty9917]

Good explanation of his views to consider. I can always do that, and should.

[@pierrelabounty9917]

To much information latent in creation also we now know and the certain aspects of molecular biology are anomalies that no theory of non directed creation by whatever process is possible.

[@westernevils]

"Everything he says is wrong, because I don't believe in that one thing he believes in" is probably the dumbest argument ever.

[@silentcaay]

Despite being one of the most misused/misunderstood fallacies, it's an actual ad hominem fallacy. If used in an atheist community, it would also be a poisoning the well fallacy.

[@cepoe8358]

gotta say, clint absolutely destroyed them with the emerald tree skink argument

[@AllanTidgwell]

​@silentcaay it could also be a Genetic Fallacy. "He's an (insert whatever here) so that claim has to be false"

[@coffeebean7512]

as an atheist i agree

[@mandowarrior123]

Sounds like modern politics. Ironically enough, being intollerant of other people's views is bigotry. But if someone disagrees with you they must be a Nazi, or a conspiracist or groomer, or something else. Life is easier when you don't have to argue. Better yet, ban them like a reddit mod!

[@JamesS805]

I absolutely love how respectful you are in these videos while speaking with such clarity while correcting their misconceptions. Thank you for defending evolution while being a theist. We need more people like you.

[@elijahself6440]

As someone who grew up in very close minded Christian community, where my own curiosity about science forced me out of the church and my beliefs simply because “I couldn’t take god and science both seriously at the same time” you are such a sweet breath of fresh air

[@mrbrandon6]

I’m glad you made this video. It is so refreshing to hear a Christian debunking creationist arguments.

[@TheZoltan-42]

"There is no proof for evolution. Nothing. Zero." "How many biology books have you opened in your life?" "Nothing. Zero."

[@SUSH1BOY]

you're correct evolution has no proof (at all) but the earth can not be 7000 years old (this doesn't disprove the bible the running belief most cristians have is that god created the world over millions of year, clearly you dont believe everything in the bible if you disaprove one of the following the story of job, the body of christ you ruin your own argument)

[@RePlayQ]

“Show me a single bit of proof” *points him towards the library*

[@SUSH1BOY]

@@RePlayQ i think he means evolution of man cuase there is no fossils of any thing but man and monkeys

[@RePlayQ]

@@SUSH1BOY ignorance truly is bliss isn’t it?

[@SUSH1BOY]

@@RePlayQ i will hear u out i am already uniformitarinasm even tho im catholic the catholic schurch dosent deny the fact that the earth isnt 4000 years old or whatever

[@LoLotov]

I've been waiting for you to do a video like this! Unapologetically having your faith while understanding and sharing basic scientific concepts at the same time is something I deeply respect about you and your content.

[@AshironDerigarStudios]

the people with that symbol unironically are seething lol

[@sHuRuLuNi]

As a Muslim, I also believe in God AND evolution. I don't see what the problem is.

[@seanpol9863]

There were people in history, like Al-Jahiz, who thought the same as well. This was during the Abbasid Golden Age. Al-Jahiz was a 9th-century Arab scholar, writer, and polymath known for his contributions to literature, zoology, and early evolutionary thought, particularly through his seminal work The Book of Animals.

[@AronRa]

I still want to do a collab with you! Both as a science communicator teaching evolution and as a herp guy with 75 snakes in my house.

[@hylaherping9180]

Love to see it!

[@XraynPR]

That would be a neat thing!

[@DrachenGothik666]

I would definitely watch that as I love both your stuff & adore reptiles!

[@crow-dont-know]

I would enjoy this collaboration

[@celticnoble5650]

Whoa, that would definitely be rad!

[@Netheferious]

The realization that those parasitic tumors found on dogs are technically a unique species of dog is causing me to have a mild existential crisis not gonna lie.

[@sharonseaman5672]

Not technically a species. Like grafting tree cuttings, it's the same original dog. Or, if it has speciated, so does cancer. Your mutated cells are your descendants living in the ecosystem of your own body, adapting and evolving to survive and reproduce in the harsh environment of your own immune system and medical interventions, until, like modern humans, it destroys its own habitat. Both are true. Same dog, many dogs.

[@joshf2685]

Yes this is like the immortal human cancer cell lines being a new species. It would be astonishing if one of those cells lines adapted to the point that it persisted in the wild. That would certainly be a rather odd ape living as a unicellular asexually reproducing organism.

[@justinfriedman2039]

Do you have a link to anything about this? It makes sense, but I wanna read about it.

[@BryanLu0]

​@@justinfriedman2039Search for "Canine transmissible venereal tumor"

[@schrodingerscat3741]

@@justinfriedman2039 youtube doesn't allow links (and I don't have one off hand anyway), but you should be able to find it pretty easily by searching for the sexually transmitted dog cancer.

[@Siberius-]

A common thing here seems to be that creationists see evolution as this enemy that counters their worldview, and so when they explain evolution, it's often in a way that inaccurately counters/"attacks" creationism in some way, like they will often talk about how life began, but, how life began, is not even relevant to evolution. It's like that meme where Thanos says “I don’t even know who you are”.

[@Imman1s]

Well, as an atheist myself, I always found the certainty in which some theist folks decide what their god can or cannot do based on what they can pull from their own backsides quite amusing. There is a fine line there somewhere that goes straight into slander territory, and I faintly recall that was the only unforgivable sin, so some mad respect for sticking to the con at the potential cost of their immortal soul.

[@Siberius-]

​@@Imman1s - What people say of their god(s), seem to ALWAYS conveniently line-up with what their moral inclinations already were, before coming across things in the bible. They don't have to adjust anything, because you can always cherry pick the bible to suit yourself. Part of the issue there is that you HAVE to cherry pick the bible, because there's directly contradicting stuff in it at various points, including in Genesis right at the start. But then it's probably a good thing, since you want the leeway for them to be more chill in their behaviour. I think it was like Greek mythology, etc. where you have the gods, but there would be many different versions of stories. It's just that, way in the future you only get maybe one surviving version and then people think all those details must be the one story everyone actually believed happened, despite there being surely no way to know such tiny details. MAYBE. I dunno. Yea I don't know what internal mental game these people who use religion for their own gain are playing entirely. Some of them surely believe in a god.

[@djkb125]

I’m a Christian but also believe in science. I don’t understand why so many believers treat science as an attack on their beliefs like you said. Why not both? I don’t believe God is a magician. The way I see it, the Bible covers 6,000 years of spiritual history on this earth but the earth is certainly much much older than that. Even the Bible alludes to the fact that there were many other people on earth at the time of Adam and Eve. When Cain kills Abel, who was he afraid of? He went to the land of Nod and took a wife…. Was it his mom?!? Treating the Bible is a literal history and science book is foolishness. Evolution happened, we share a common ancestor with other primates and dinosaurs didn’t live alongside people. Oh and dinosaur bones weren’t planted by satan to trick us. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@Siberius-]

​@@djkb125 - Yea I do much prefer the idea of a religious person doing both, I gotta say. I think sometimes they also do this because they subscribe to the concept of creationism, and evolution really takes that almost entirely away, undeniably, right back until you get to the question of abiogenesis... So if evolution can't (doesn't) explain how life began, then they feel they can therefore throw out evolution as a whole, but yea evolution doesn't care about how life began. I remember from my younger days, that was a popular tactic. "You can't explain this one thing? that means my worldview is correct". Dinosaurs being planted by satan to trick us, sounds very... 80s. The unfortunate thing with having to try and justify certain beliefs, is how quickly it makes people veer straight into mega conspiracy. Like trying to explain dinosaur bones and dating and geology and biology and mass collusion across all these fields and governments, etc. Better to just see it as, learning more about how the god in question went about their stuff. NITPICK: "I believe in science" is phrasing I try to avoid, since people can take it to mean belief in the sense of like, faith, like with spirituality. At least I cared about that a lot when in online religion debates 10+ years ago lol.

[@djkb125]

@@Siberius- you’re totally right that evolution doesn’t try to explain how life began though the primordial soup still doesn’t mean God isn’t real to me but like the video stated, science doesn’t even try to be so absolute. It’s about testing and observations and study. Science doesn’t have all the answers but I wish more Christian’s didn’t take that as some win that gives them license to throw it all out. That leads to so many other conspiracy theories like you mentioned. I mean, how on earth would a microchip be in the Covid vaccine?!?! Have you seen the gauge needle used to microchip pets? We would have known! lol. And the dinosaur bones thing may sound 80s but I’ve legit met other’s in my adult life that believe such things though I was born in the 80s haha. I’ll take note of the “I believe in science” statement. I can see how that would denote faith. More accurate is to say, I acknowledge the value of science and trust the scientific consensus. It’s more of a “I haven’t done the research or testing but I believe them when they say this” but in a discussion involving religious believers that word might not be received correctly .

[@Eduard-xd5el]

I respect your ability to not get frustrated or upset with these people personally it’s rather hard for me not to be annoyed

[@Trynedge]

Coming from an atheist (Howdy!), I have known you were a Christian for some time, and I love love love your channel. Your religious beliefs do not interfere with your scientific training and education and your expertise and knowledge of taxonomy, biology, and zoology are quite apparent to anyone watching. You're awesome, I adore you and your content, and many atheists who are just deconstructing and coming out of religion tend to go through an 'ahole' phase 😅 That's on them, not on you. You keep doing you, Clint, much love buddy! And great video, thank you!

[@TransformersTalkRAW]

Well there's a plethora of scientists that do actually believe in a divine Creator, and some who even reject evolution entirely.

[@sarahbeaulieu999]

Well said. I knew he was religious he went to and taught at a religious school. He is so intelligent and able to explain things in ways that are really easy to understand so it grabs everyone's interest while educating. I love how excited he is to teach. Honestly even if I wasn't as interested in the things he talks about I would probably still watch at least some of his content because his enthusiasm is almost contagious

[@Orgs_Rock]

As an aethiest, this is one of my favorite channels on youtube, and im sorry you get harassed by the people that give atheism a bad name. Knowledge is knowledge, regaurdless of your teachers belifes, and im glad you teach, spending your time, energy and passion making other people, including me, passionate about biology, evoloution, etc. Thank you.

[@DrachenGothik666]

*Atheist. *Regardless. *Beliefs. *Evolution. Proper spelling is a good thing.

[@AshironDerigarStudios]

honestly the people that are attacking clint probably include tankies, the kind of people that want to worship an all powerful dictatorship in place of any kind of God

[@adderall3676]

Those first 13 minutes were an absolute masterclass in measured and substantiated scientific conversation and teaching. At absolutely no point was anyone's idea or point of view attacked which is SO critical to opening a dialog. Bravo and incredibly well done!

[@mopakiw]

You set an amazing example of how to address differing opinions.

[@DefilerWyrm]

Honestly though. He’s a married man with kids who lives in Utah. The likelihood that Clint was an atheist was already super slim. Well. This atheist has lost no respect for you. My parents are Christians and they both fully accept the theory of evolution. You make a fantastic point about the need to accurately describe an opponent’s viewpoint in order to reach them with good faith arguments.

[@DahVoozel]

No, Tucker, you do not see adaptation litter to litter. You see genetic variation. I am assuming you aren't letting some of your dogs die because thier coats are too short or thier paws are a little too small.

[@psxtuneservice]

I think he means thing like you breed two big dogs than you see already in the next litter that they are bigger than when you breed a small small and a big one....wouldnt call that adaptation but most probably what he meant

[@areallyshortbrontothere]

*tucker putting the puppies in the cold for the greater good of selection pressures*

[@casualsleepingdragon8501]

If he did, i'd be shocked, but not surprised

[@ettinakitten5047]

I mean, neutering is as effective as killing at removing an animal from the gene pool.

[@AmyEugene]

What's her name, Kristi Noem? I hope he's not getting her advice on breeding for temperament. 😥

[@Bottle-OBill]

"Extinction's the only way out." -Clint, 2024

[@muffty1337]

...but will we see it comming?

[@breyerobsessionist16]

Can I get this on a T-shirt??

[@pantalonesdemuerto7960]

@@breyerobsessionist16 Seconded.

[@therongjr]

Does that mean he's running for office? I'd vote for him!

[@lastyhopper2792]

Careful there, some Christians may think that you meant: "Extinction's the only way out... of the Climate Crisis, that's what our Illuminati's leaders have decided, and that's why they created the failed attempt at mass-killing, i.e., the Covid-19."

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

As someone who likes their coffee with milk, I can be glad that a harmful mutation allows me to digest lactose.

[@kristinwright6632]

I grew up in a Christian family as a devout Christian and everyone I connected with were also Christian. I never even heard of young earth creationism until the last 20 years or so and it seemed crazy to me. A vast number of Christians know that evolution is established science. You just don't hear about them so much these days because the young earth creationists are screaming so loud. Other than you I don't know any other believers who take that position publicly and it is very frustrating.

[@sylvainsanesti3499]

I feel like a lot of Christians believe in evolution but they don't necessarily know how to bring the two together in a coherent way, so it's a little akward for them to talk about it.

[@kristinwright6632]

@@sylvainsanesti3499 agreed. I remember when I read the creation story as a kid I had really not considered it a myth but it also didn't really make any sense as literal. I kind of ignored it. I trusted science. Heck my dad was a rocket scientist, literally. I just never thought about the bible stories as whether they were mythological or not. As I got older I never really probed that. It was other things that drove me out of Christianity. I'm now a happy neoPagan enjoying the gaining in inspiration from all the sacred mythologies on the planet including Christianity. Literal fact to me has no place in a spiritual practice. It exists in a different place IMO.

[@WillyOrca]

​@@sylvainsanesti3499​ I rationalize it like this; Satan's great deception on mankind was to convince Adam and Eve to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. God may recognize the potential hazards of humans obtaining information/knowledge that they do not fully understand, and the dangerous extrapolations they may draw from such knowledge. Perhaps he was aware that human beings lacked the required hardware to ever understand the mechanics of God, or that we would only ever recognize his hand if it were applied directly in a manner that he does not operate. If he knew that a deeper understanding of his own operational mechanisms would cause humans to draw incorrect conclusions about his existence due to an inability to grasp the larger picture, it would explain Satan's incentive for getting us to eat the fruit, as well as God's reasoning for limiting the information we are given. Our scientific breakthroughs, and our sci-fi level technology likely does not impress God whatsoever, because we were not put here to "go forth and do science". We were told to reproduce and live Godly lives in tune with his natural order.

[@adamredwine774]

Check out Dr. Joel Duff. He has a KZbin channel and a blog. He is a conservative Christian who does a lot of discussion about the problems with creationism.

[@JoeThomas-m4b]

Young earth creationists aren't Christians - they are neo-jewish. They believe in the old testament books more than the new testament. They are Christian only in so far as they hero worship Jesus, in the expectation that their loyalty to his blood-magic sacrifice will give them a blessed afterlife than a damned one. If Jesus had succeeded in his bid for power - instead of being executed, he would be viewed in history in a similar way to Mandela / Gandhi . I don't see any reason to retain the old testament. It's explanation of the origin (and predicted end) of existence is pure fantasy, and untrue. As for the rest, it depicts the rise of a malevolent empire (/war god) who instilled fear in both its enemies and loyal supporters alike. And whose practices we find morally repugnant today.

[@MatthewADupuis]

Clint just went from being my favorite reptile KZbinr to being my favorite virtual professor ever. Thank you for stepping up and making this video on such a “touchy subject.” And god bless you.

[@lavatrout]

I remember my views on religion being forever shifted after my 5th grade science teacher, whom i respected deeply, told us that there were ways to learn about and believe in evolution that can not only coexist with your religious views, but also add more understanding to them. This was really significant to me because I was raised atheist in a rural town smack dab in the middle of the bible belt, and I was basically taught that all Christians (and those who believe in related theories) would have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, especially where evolution is concerned. In short, my parents would continually nail in that Christians were ignorant of the way the world actually functioned, and I believed that for a long time until my science teacher told us that he was Christian AND that he believed in science and was happy to teach evolution to us. It was a very eye opening experience that I still think back on decades later. For context, the theory of evolution was so polarizing in my school district (public school mind you), that parents had to sign wavers allowing their children to be taught Darwinism and the theory of evolution. The day that we were sat down to learn about it, what few members of my class had parents that actually signed this waver were saying that their parents told them to just get a good grade and ignore the subject matter. It was then that my teacher told us about his faith and how he felt about things, and while it didn't quell every student's doubts, it did make most of us more open. Me to the idea of having Christian peers and my classmates to the idea of having evolutionist peers. I don't think many atheists have experiences like that, and it tends to make us very polarized when it comes to personal beliefs. I now make every effort to examine my personal biases whenever I come across religious or cultural differences. Side note - literally cannot believe people are shocked that someone from Utah who frequently wears a button up shirt and tie is not atheist. That's wild to me. That's just.. that behavior does not adhere to atheistical culture lol. I think I would have been more surprised to find that Clint was atheist. Anyway, keep making good videos, Clint (and crew)! Love the content

[@llSuperSnivyll]

Besides, there has been a large amount of deeply religious scientists. It would be so absurdly trivial to treat scientific research as "giving the details your sacred books didn't" instead of "trying to debunk your beliefs". Which is probably what the likes of Newton or Lemaître thought.

[@carmandirda]

There was a point where Christians generally rejected science that countered their understanding of evolution, but thankfully, that is changing. Now it's a toss-up if you talk to someone Christian about evolution whether they will be totally on board or upset by it. And that is a good thing! Religion will likely never go away, but it's okay for people to hold beliefs that also evolve to fit our current scientific understanding. It's happened several times across history, and it will continue to do so. People believed the sun revolved around the earth, psychiatric issues were signs of possession, and more! For the vast vast majority of people, that is no longer the case, because time helped people accept the new information gained.

[@Red-in-Green]

⁠@@llSuperSnivyll100%. I’ve seen a lot of descriptions of what they were doing as “expanding the understanding of God’s creation”. When I was Christian as a kid, that’s how I thought of it. My church and my mom very much encouraged the idea that the Bible is a mix of truth and metaphor, one which one must be wise to sort through, which is why priests do that full time. Biblical literalism wasn’t something I encountered until I was older and it was WEIRD to me. The thing I’d been told was literal and inerrant about the Bible was the rules and advice, not the history (or the weird rules. I wasn’t told about the weird rules). 10 seconds of thought in which you hold both Adam and Eve and the Hapsburgs in your mind will tell you that that one is a metaphor about how we should treat everyone as family (again, teaching from when I was 10). Also, there was a lot of focus on how the four books of the New Testament all told the same stories different ways, keeping in or leaving out details or even contradicting each other, but that was because they were telling stories to teach lessons, not history, in remembrance of a man who did the same. Science and the Bible are not enemies unless one picks a fight on purpose. Biblical literalism is religion picking a fight. Edgy atheists do the same.

[@Call-me-Al]

I live in a mostly atheistic culture, so I never had this polarized view of religious people until my teens. All the religious people I knew weren't unhinged fundamentalists, they were normal people who took science as a natural and important part of life and society, but just also believed in something more. Then I got older and I learned there were in-between states of the most fundamentalist fundamentalists and the "normal" chill Christians. That was quite unpleasant. Freedom of religion is supposed to include freedom from religion, not just in an atheistic way but also that people need to respect the other religious folk. As in any religion variant that opposes the existance of other religion subvariants, variants, and atheists, inherently are incompatible with modern society. People with personal beliefs who gain strength from it and are cooperative with the other cooperative people works great! Stuff like the separation of church and state is important to allow for personal religious differences and the lack of religion.

[@The_Worst_Guy_Ever]

Wearing a button up shirt and tie doesn't adhere to atheist culture? What?

[@MiaobuMiao]

Well, you just earned a sub. You are a breath of fresh air, brother. I never understood this idea that religion and science are contradictory, therefore it’s either one or the other when they really work together. Never change.

[@dasani.like.the.water.]

I’m not an atheist, I would say that i’m more agnostic. However, I want to apologize for how rude a lot of atheists were to you. It’s nice seeing a religious person with your views on evolution. I’m just so used to seeing Evangelicals denying science. So thank you Clint, keep up the awesome videos!

[@bms77]

Yer agnostic in what? Are you agnostic w respect to being convinced there’s a god or are you agnostic w respect to not being convinced. Agnosticism isn’t its own 3rd position. You are either convinced there’s a god or you aren’t.. agnosticism only answers what you claim to know..

[@lace7458]

I am amazed by your ability to be polite and affirmative, you seem like someone who would actually be able to hold a pleasant conversation on the subject.

[@mmaxmax6]

hello! i am pagan and i often watch anti young earth creationist videos, and i would just like to tell you clint, you are so kind. we need more people in the world like you. i see so many anti yec youtubers quickly lose their patience with the yec youtubers/podcasters, and resort to insulting them. i feel like we would have much better discussions if we had more people like you. keep doing what you’re doing!! ❤❤

[@wadewilson6628]

You need to stop worshiping demons.

[@mmaxmax6]

@@wadewilson6628 worshipping* and you need to start respecting other people’s beliefs

[@tysolbohan6446]

Pagan is a new word for new age larper mu-h ancestors bruh muh pure ancient knowledge bruh mu-h 5000 years of ancient knowledge bruh

[@joseantoniovargas6548]

The thing is why do those people start throwing insults? Because those YEC idiots, because that's what they are, keep talking and talking about stuff that constantly gets told in their face is wrong and still make butt loads money off of gullible people that believe them

[@mmaxmax6]

@@tysolbohan6446 what? what are you talking about? i didn’t even mention what kind of pagan i was. you do realize how many religions are under that umbrella, right?

[@jeanmichel4630]

J’aime beaucoup tes videos! Bon travail 😊 ce que tu explique est très intéressant et me fait beaucoup réfléchir.

[@scytaleghola5969]

When discussing the "gaps" in the fossil record, you should remind people that the fossils that we have found represent only 0.00000000000000000000000001% of everything that has ever lived. OK, I made that number up, but the point is valid. A guy challenged me about ten years ago regarding the fossil record and I asked, "if we traced your family history back through your father, grandfather, great grandfather, great-great grandfather and 95 more generations and consider all of their progeny, how many fossils do you think we would find?" He said, "Lots." I said, "So you think that people in your family have had their bones buried in sediment, volcanic ash, encapsulated in amber, or some other mechanism that protected their remains or an imprint of their remains?" He said "No, but their bones are still around." I explained, "Bones are not fossils and bones decay. Therefore, it is very unlikely that anyone in your family over 99 generations (about 2500 years) will leave a fossil record.... even the relatively few in cement burial vaults." Fossils are very, very, very, very rare in the grand scheme of the planetary record.

[@llSuperSnivyll]

And besides, let's say you have fossils A and B, with a gap between them. Then, you find a fossil C that is between A and B. Great, you closed that gap! Now you have two more, between A and C, and between C and B. We'll never know the full picture. And that's the fun part.

[@dreyhawk]

That is a fantastic answer!!

[@sonpopco-op9682]

Actually when you understand genetics, you know that if you go that far back, every person is a pretty even blend of everyone who's genes have survived. At 35 generations you already have more ancestors than base pairs exist in your genes. So any surviving fossil from more than 2500 years could be his direct ancestor . . yours too.

[@scytaleghola5969]

​@@sonpopco-op9682 My point is that there have been an estimated 4.5x10^27 animals ever on Earth and we have found and cataloged only about 1.3x10^12 fossils. There are a huge number of huge gaps in the fossil record. I can say with greater than 99.99999% confidence that none of my ancestors from the past 2500 years are a part of the fossil record. My confidence diminishes as we look back farther in time.

[@MrDanAng1]

For the last 100 human generations, how many fossils could we possibly find? Technically, the number will be zero, since a fossil finds per definition is over 10.000 year old. But I understand that this is about what could be found in 10.000 years plus change from now. It's roughly one chance in a billion that any random organism will become a fossil. That would be about 8 human future fossils from this generation. 8x100 generations equals 800, but that would give a massively blown up number, since the current human population size is historically EXTREMELY big, for the last 2.500 years, the average population is most likely much closer to half a billion or even less than 8 billions, so that would leave about one fossil every second generation, or 50 total from the last 100 generations. BUT, that's also an unreasonable large number, since it's much more likely for fossils to form from water living organisms than land living organisms, so the number would more likely be closer to 10 total. But then again, many humans actively bury their dead in the ground, so we humans probably scew those odds a fair bit, so about 50 is probably not an unfair number of possible future fossils from the last 100 generations

[@CoperliteConsumer]

My uncle is a creationist and always said we never see species jump. Thank you so much for explaining the clade thing. This is exactly what i wanted to know! This is perfect.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Any moles never leaving their clade is a strawman are grew mint. That like saying, hue men's Kent swim two the bottom of the deepest ocean. But the other person respawns is, Hue men's never leave the Universe. Changing clades is a huge leap from changing families.

[@formerlyLadyMacbeth]

I think, personally, the most influential thing that got me to accept evolution actually was to realize that its an active field of research and that there are many things we don't know, and that if I really wanted to wrap my head around it or find alternative explanations, the best way would to become a scientist myself.

[@bananaslug.1951]

Thanks for explaining how science works and the language you use to do it with👍👍👍

[@dstinnettmusic]

“There’s no evidence of cars. There’s just wheeled vehicles powered by internal combustion engines that people use to move from place to place” Like…what is he even talking about? He literally described the process of evolution by natural selection over time. He just doesn’t want to concede even the slightest point so he has to do these mental gymnastics to say evolution isn’t real, just the entire process of how it works is true.

[@dstinnettmusic]

As an aside to the above. I think the problem with discourse comes down to a total lack of care for maintaining respectability. Carlson makes no effort to maintain a respect of his own arguments or for the arguments or others. He only cares about “winning”. That is why I like your takes on these things. You care about the arguments on both sides and the people making them. To me, that is why your viewpoint as a scientist who believes in god is important. It is part of your vocation as a Christian to behave this way. And I think some sense of this mindset is important. I don’t think it has to come from Christ in all people , as a Christian, I have to concede that I don’t think other faiths or those who lack any faith would exist if they were not needed, But I think what makes someone a good person can come from all these places.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

i am convinced that tucker is just nuts. he has been surrounded by yes men for way too long. ​@@dstinnettmusic

[@tristanridley1601]

He's slightly misusing terms, but in a common way. They use "evolution" to mean "the evolution of new species" and "adaptation" to mean "evolution within a species" such as breeds of dogs. So he's saying yes we observe evolution, but probably denying speciation. The guy later is making the same distinction but calls it "macro-evolution".

[@cautemoc4624]

@@tristanridley1601 Yeah it's still ridiculous but in a different way. Like "we don't have evidence of new technology being created, there's no direct link from gears to a watch, only different kinds of watches" - and saying this because we don't have every single individual device made between gears and the first clock

[@onegreenev]

Adaptation is not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution.

[@Bald_Wizard_Man]

I am a Christian, and I used to be a science teacher. I have never felt a conflict between these two massive parts of my life.

[@JLAvey]

There isn't one. Whenever somebody from either side tries to push it, I just say that one answers how and the other answers why.

[@davidhouseman4328]

I'm not sure why you've felt no conflict when your holy book starts with things that aren't true. I can understand getting past it, just not never feeling any issue.

[@MrCusefan44]

@@davidhouseman4328- Probably because seeing a conflict between science and the Bible requires a particular interpretation of the Bible which isn’t - and never has been - universally held. It’s mostly a modern development, disconnected from most church history. Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, is known as the founder of modern genetic science. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, first proposed the Big Bang Theory. Catholic theology is (and always has been) highly compatible with modern science.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@MrCusefan44 it's an interpretation that says bits of the bible are wrong. For me, if that's never concerned you, you've never spent time considering it.

[@MrCusefan44]

@@davidhouseman4328 - Defend why you believe the Genesis account MUST be interpreted literally, along with any evidence you have that the early Christian church universally agreed with you. You won’t be able to find evidence of the latter, and I’ll be able to demolish anything you propose for the former. I think the issue is you haven’t thought about this nearly enough - you’ve assumed your position of literalism is mandatory, not investigated what the early church taught, and declared the matter settled in your own mind.

[@Acerz-nb7ui]

Its so refreshing to hear thoughtful and respectful commentary, so often people have challenged me on positions I hold that they do not understand the reasoning behind at all, and its always frustrating. I am not a creationist myself, but you have given yourself so much credibility in my eyes by looking at the actual points made and adressing them rather than just giving an angry rant with little relevancy to the arguments. Just for that your for sure one of the best creators on this app!

[@valdimer11]

With this video The most interesting part was when you told me about how you believe in God. As an atheist let's be honest I've studied evolution extensively so everything you were saying here wasn't a surprise or anything I didn't already know. Thank you for the clarification. Keep up the good work.

[@johnlabisch]

Never been happier as a subscriber of your channel. Patience, active listening, thorough explanations, you name it. Thanks for expressing and exemplifying the nuances in human thought, belief, and scientific understanding. You rock, Clint.

[@thegingersheep]

As an agnostic who grew up with an atheist father and a Christian mother who both believe in evolution I find videos like this great. It shows that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Clint does a great job of fairly explaining both sides and succeeds in the goal of educating people on both sides. I would love to see more people treat all kinds of topics like this. Keep up the good work Clint and team.

[@No-cg9kj]

Science and faith are absolutely mutually exclusive. You don't need to be a genius to be a scientist, just a fucking B average student lol. Scientific evidence disproves every story religion has to tell because the two are not compatible. The only reason more scientists don't say this is because they fear backlack from the morons who believe in religion.

[@Jo1day]

Not all dogs have bones! Thank you for the definitions of the scientific terms

[@areallyshortbrontothere]

I'd like my dog bone-in please

[@mscottjohnson3424]

Some dogs don't have bones. Not until their owner, or a butcher, gives them one.

[@evan6338]

It's a no-bones day.

[@Bald_Wizard_Man]

I think I know what Clint is going to talk about with that. It is fascinating.

[@Thefrogbread]

Only when I give them bone to nom nom

[@brackencloud]

"extinction is the only way out" *throws notes* got a good little laugh from me

[@prehistoricbody]

So happy to find your channel! I am a paleo artist working in Indonesia, and most of the community around me are creationist by default. I appreciate your strategy very much for respecting and making sure to understand what creationist points are and why they make them. Proper human decency behind this channel!

[@GamePlague]

I've never seen a baby turn directly into an adult, they must have separate origins.

[@colinsixhitter3303]

A baby grows into an adult. It can not evolve after fertilisation. Any differences it has are already baked in so the only effect they can have on evolution is to live long enough to reproduce to pass on its genes and any advantages/disadvantages they have.

[@sharkestry1119]

it's true. Whenever you bring your baby to a babysitter/daycare/school they switch the baby with a slightly larger baby until you have a fully grown human walking around in your house.

[@freddan6fly]

I never heard Latin turn into Italian, the languages must be created by god /s.

[@eiontactics9056]

If that is an argument, I think you might need to evolve back to a baby and re-do education.

[@Adventist1997]

We can literally see the changes happen over time, so yes you have seen babies turn into adults. You've also witnessed yourself aging. Therefore your point of reference is illogical and ignorant of the actual debate. We haven't seen fossils show the changes that are assumed to happen. We only see the usual small changes. In any experiment they've done such as looking at the several generations of flies, they showed roughly no change. They concluded that flies can't evolve any further. We do know that things evolve, but the question for the debate is how much things can evolve. In any fossil we examine, we see changes from current life forms. However, we don't have concrete evidence that the fossilized bones are 100℅ as we presume them to be. Evolutionists are learning more about fossils every day and often have to make new theories or change the species of many animals because of new findings. An example of this in living things is the Panda Bear. The Panda Bear is a true Bear, unlike the Red Panda. Originally people assumed the Panda Bear was related to a Raccoon because of their bone structure being similar to the Red Panda. The Red Panda is NOT a Bear, or Ursidae at all. The Red Panda is an Ailuridae. We discovered the Panda Bears true relation to Bears in 1985 by studies in molecular biology. And that's where the true problem arises in making concrete blanket statements on evolution based purely on fossils. We literally do NOT have enough information to outright claim things we don't have evidence of. The bone structure can only tell us so much, And if we only had fossils of Red Pandas and Panda Bears, we would likely still assume Panda Bears are related to Raccoons.

[@stilicho539]

Man, you're patient and helpful in a polarized debate when others wouldn't be and I see that as a true virtue. I can't say I'm fully like this myself, but it's one of the things I do strive for. We'd live in a better world if everyone had this strength.

[@lukewildman945]

Thanks for all the great information! As someone who was raised strongly evangelical Christian and became an atheist not long ago, I'd love to see a video going more in-depth on your spiritual journey--though I know that's not the intent of your channel, and maybe you don't want to open that can of worms any more than it already is. Either way, great video!

[@Weirdanimator]

I strongly recommend that you release the section of this video explaining the terms hypotheses theory etc as a stand-alone video.

[@WiseSnake]

Totally agree!

[@yochva]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing - although I would edit out the comment about "Tucker's theory". Funny as it is in context, it wouldn't be appropriate for a purely academic video like that.

[@theace8502]

He has a video like that on his other channel, but one on here would definitely get to a wider audience

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

i think a video like that exists on clint explains

[@mikeashe7270]

As an aithiest you are by far one of my favorite avenues of learning on the internet. I highly respect you and what you do and while I may not agree with everything you may belive or not I can respect and admire that you present facts and knowledge in a fun and effective manner

[@alitryrnn1668]

Thank you for being respectful and clarifying many of the common misconceptions regarding what people consider a contradiction between believing in God and what theories in science we have today. I believe God started the creation of all things, but then let things take their course which is reflected in evolution as it's TRULY understood. Thank you for encouraging us all to understand all sides of the conversation and the terms that are important to the arguments on both sides.

[@Dekubud]

I think it's completely valid. I'm now atheist, but if a theist says they believe their deity is all-knowing and that this deity purposefully set-off to create humans, then it comes to follow that the deity knew that creating whatever came before the big bang would lead to humans. The creationists Clint debunked just like they have a hard time conceiving that a deity might think on a whole different level than humans do.

[@johnmurnane1184]

Thank you for a great video. One thing you can be sure about is that when someone like Carlson says the theory of evolution has been disproven and no one believes it anymore, they are fine with lying. There is no reason to discuss things with them because they have no respect for the truth.

[@johngavin1175]

To my fellow Atheists that disowned Clint: grow up. Good friggin grief!

[@AshironDerigarStudios]

the same people who do that probably have a soviet flag on their wall

[@thesnatcher3616]

@@AshironDerigarStudios Atheist republic, prob has one of those "in this house we believe in science..." banners, multiple copies of books by Bart Ehrman, God is Not Good by Hitchens, God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and something by Richard Carrier probably. Oh and don't forget the spiderman comics.

[@sunlizard9593]

These people are either “baby” atheist or atheist that never grew out of that phase

[@Aethuviel]

Those were all either 14 or at the mental stage of an average 14-year old.

[@user-bo3mp8un6c]

@@thesnatcher3616Nothing wrong with that stuff. Why not have material you believe in which substantiates your argument. Isn’t it better to have reasons to believe what you believe, rather than to believe what you believe for no reason?

[@hedoraht]

I despise the mindset that many young earth creationists (and atheists, though in a different way) have where someone is either a Christian or an "evolutionist" atheist to the point that they define christians who support evolution as atheists. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this without hiding your faith.

[@heyyou2720]

I am in the minority of my church that believes in both God as benevolent creator and that humans share a common ancestor with apes. I see science as an attempt to explain the natural world and the holy Bible as one attempt among many to teach morality and spiritual growth to humanity. They don't necessarily contradict each other.

[@theguyfromsaturn]

@@heyyou2720 I am among the majority of my church that believes the same as you do. Heck even the Pope made a statements several years ago supporting this view point.

[@fallen_vague28]

I _think_ it's because of the stories of Adam and Eve, how God created Adam from clay and Eve from his rib, that they were the first humans. If you believe in that, or at least believe in the book that contains those kinds of stories, then how can you also support evolution? Since evolution goes all the way back to the beginning of Earth. It doesn't help that young Earth creationists exist, despite the evidence of things being older than however long young Earth creations believe. So it further skews their image of Christians But obviously I don't know why or how they think, it's just my thought process

[@ab0mb86]

"If a theory is still a theory after 200 years, it must be pretty good." 👏👏👏

[@TransformersTalkRAW]

Well, in all fairness lots of things were practiced and believed in for far longer, and are now recognized to be to the detriment of society. Slavery is but one example. It is, imo, analogous.

[@theshapeshifter0]

​@@TransformersTalkRAW did... Did you just compare evolution to slavery? In what way are those things even remotely similar?

[@sophistic9907]

Where did you get that tie? I must know lol

[@jimmy21584]

I don’t know why so many theists get defensive and reject science, instead of thinking something like: “hooray! Observation of the universe is showing us how God works in much more creative and interesting ways than we could ever have imagined!”

[@sciencecompliance235]

Because their thought patterns are strongly influenced by a fear response that inhibits such insightful thinking.

[@thylaconical2840]

I would argue that a number of theists, even entire sects, do take this stance of accepting modern science into their faith rather than imagining one must exist in place of the other. It's certainly not everyone, though, and those with louder opinions tend to get more traction thanks to the internet.

[@czarnoksiezhnik]

​@@sciencecompliance235 I think it's fear or anger yet, they think science denies religion and see it as a threat and contradiction to their belief (and not just belief but a system of power and way of life)

[@milamber319]

Because it's not about the belief its about the control. When you have a belief system that says "you are doing the right thing and your actions are good because this book is true" and someone comes up and says "your book isnt true"... even if they say "the is only partially true" that indicates an uncertainty and shakeyness to the foundation of the moral structure they have built their lives around. If there is chance that the book isnt true there is a chance you are not the good person in this situation. They have lost control of their nice clean reality. And that is something that many people can't deal with. Believers or not. Add to that the control of others, of family and society. Of building a safe space where everyone does as they are told so that there is no chance that your beliefs can be contradicted and you have to put no effort into maintaining your self control. It makes you want to fight for that control and impose your beliefs on others so you feel safe that they can't influence your self control.

[@lekhaclam87]

I remembered arguing with a lady years ago who got really offended when I brought this point up. She seemed to believe that the origin of life was some kind of no-go zone where us mere humans were not ment to set foot in and to suggest that evolution maybe how God created life was a sin, like trying to predict the rapture. I don't know if she was a special case or there are others who think this way.

[@vladprus4019]

That ending: "You're one of the worst life forms I've ever heard of" "But, you've heard of me"

[@azaanimations319]

“No transitional fossils” **laughs in Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Ambulocetus**

[@mattm7798]

Actually Ambulocetus has been shown to have serious flaws in asserting it is a transitional species, including the waiting time problem. Put simply, the fossil record show that far too little time from them into true marine whale existed to account for the spread of the required genetic changes.

[@jeremymullens7167]

I think there are some issues with our theoretic structure for evolution. Basically evolution has a standard rate but at times changes can happen are a faster rate that doesn’t seem to fit. I’ve had people tell me off the wall alien theories because the timing seems to be off. I think the answer is the process works faster under some conditions.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@mattm7798 1. I seriously doubt you did the Maths 🔢. 2. That is a problem for Materialism. If it turned out animals are evolving too quickly, scientists 🧑‍🔬 *will* accept animals have souls who are imperfectly alter their DNA 🧬 with intent. And evolution would still be 100% true.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

​@@mattm7798 1. How would you know such a specific thing that happened in a habitat not found on Earth today (vast shallow sea)? 2. That is a problem for Materialism. If it turned out animals are evolving too quickly, scientists 🧑‍🔬 *will* accept animals have souls who are imperfectly alter their DNA 🧬 with intent. And evolution would still be 100% true.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

​@@mattm7798 ​ That is a problem for Materialism. If it turned out animals are evolving too quickly to explain by naturalistic mechanisms, scientists 🧑‍🔬 *will* accept animals have souls who are imperfectly alter their DNA 🧬 with intent. And evolution would still be 100% true. Also, whales evolved in a habitat unlike anything on Earth today (a vast shallow sea), so how could one possibly have a frame of reference to be able to assess the magnitude of their changes in an unbiased way?