Summations Only

Well, this is pretty typical mainstream science and pop communities habit of revealing only the message they want to reveal. Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.The narrator even points out that in America at least 50% of the population believes in some form of creationism-but of course we have only included people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because that is really the only way the evolutionists camp can argue their points and act superior in authority. Why was the BBC so chicken to not allow scientifically educated intelligent design proponents along?The answer is simple, because the easy target is to take the most extreme believers, ridicule them, and then claim you have actually shown something valid in the evolutionists-creationist debate.There are 1000 questions that Jerry Coyne deserves to be asked by the BBC; like explain why the neo-Darwinian concepts like point mutations on single genes leading to a slow build-up of new phenotypes could have ever created a fast switching epigenetic system of life development, which is what recent scientific developments have shown, rather than the one gene equals one trait concept they preached for so many years? Or why hasn't science been able to show the evolution of bacteria into other life forms, even though they have studied billions upon billions of generations?So why didn't the BBC take a more honest approach the the full scientific debate, instead of just looking at religious fundamentalism, and then pretending that is a debate on evolution?I would say the answer to that is the same reason this site exists, because you can debate an extreme position, thus protecting yourself from answering the tough questions. Its how the science community has been hijacking and censoring the truth for decades. Pure propaganda handbook nonsensePretty sophomoric stuff from a place like the BBC if you ask me.

Yea, except they still tried their hardest to couch it as a show about the validity of evolution, instead of one about religious extremism. This is what your side often does, it says it wants to discuss the validity of evolution, but in reality most of the objections to the objections of evolution are about a fear or loathing of religion.You say you want a science debate, when in fact what you really want is an anti-religion debate.So we agree on one thing, it was a reality show, not a science show.One thing we don't agree on is that this site attempts to answer the hard questions. On the contrary, it does its mightiest to slither away from them. Where's the devil in your advocacy?

Coyote, I am well aware that you abide by the cultist belief that anything that calls itself a science journal is akin to being reality. So saying that something is reviewed by ones peers is no more meaningful than saying that evolutionists believe in evolution.The question is no really whether or not you are a member of the moose lodge, the better question is really why you are so afraid to be viewed more critically. Why do you censor Wikipedia, why do you out professors who don't tow your line, why do you refuse to allow schools to discuss the missing evidence in your theory, why does Percy systematically think of ways to convince fence sitters, why are Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins, and PZ Meyers so afraid of debate, why does your side seem so afraid, that they spend so much time creating so obviously uncritical fluff pieces like this BBC fakeumentary? If one is a world's leading professor of astronomy, one can't have believes in intelligent design and still keep their university job?These are the people doing the peer reviews? Whoop dee doo! Join the club, lodge brother. Don't forget your secret handshake.