As I said, his questions are fine. It's his answers that are ridiculous.
Certainty is the mother of fools.
You don't have to accept his answers. But he sure makes those kids stop and think, doesn't he? I just like the way he phrases his questions. I can imagine the Pharisees having a conversation about Jesus along these lines, telling others that his teachings were 'ridiculous' and calling him 'the mother of fools'. Everyone is entitled to their view.
1. He wasn't talking to any 'brilliant minds', surprisingly...
Hmmmm, shame about that. Future scientists should begin their college studies with a little more than simply a conviction that they are atheists, don't you think? Most of them had no idea how to respond and yet the illustration wasn't rocket science.
you're doing what he does by starting FROM the answer, then posing a question.
He began by getting them to confirm their atheistic beliefs. Identifying yourself as an atheist should at least be backed up by some knowledge of why you take that position....don't you think? It isn't enough to be taught about evolution in school or to watch a Dawkins video and assume that he must be telling the truth. It is his view but it needn't be shared as if he was some kind of an evangelist preaching the way to slavation.
You don't get to determine whether or not I'm allowed to suggest I don't know something, surely? If I don't know, surely 'I don't know' is the correct response?
You're right......I withdraw the proviso your Honor.
I just rewatched this video for the second time, so you owe me about 25 minutes of my life back...
How torturous for you....
I am humbled by your obedience.
3. Do you believe this book happened by accident?
No.
(to extrapolate, this is where credibility starts to vanish. Clearly no-one thinks the book happened by accident, whether they believe in God or not. This is not due to the books complexity, but because it is clearly human in origin. We know about books. We read and right them everyday. But heck, let's just set up a false equivalency between a book and the creation of the universe, right? I mean, anyone of the people he spoke to could have been the author of the book, right??)
Since it is scientists themselves who call the volumes containing the mapping of the human genome "the Book of Life", I think it is quite fair to use the book analogy. Just as any book with complex scientific information has to be written by someone with enough intelligence to understand what they are talking about, so it is logical to assume that intelligence was behind the information contained in the sequencing of the human genome itself.
Why he wants to interview students on this, when there are perfectly good scientists who've devoted their life to studying it, I don't know. Well, I probably do. After all, who wants an in-depth explanation when they can get a sound-byte, and simply edit for the ones 'proving' a point, right?
He has interviewed scientists before with exactly the same response. Even the professors struggled with the simple questions. Ask them something requiring a deep explanation for a mechanical function in some biological system and they will spout off jargon for half an hour without taking a breath, but ask them the simple things and they are at a loss for words.
His 'strength' is in dumbing down actual in depth arguments (more completely raised by someone like William Paley) into a 10 minute video so people can say 'Checkmate atheists'. It's pretty insulting really.
Isn't it sad that 'dumbing things down' for people shows up their level of intelligence like nothing else?
In short, there are much more intelligent attempts over the years in terms of claiming our design mandates an intelligent designer.
Some of them even attempt to address some of the clear design faults, and commonalities between DNA markers. Most don't though. Ray doesn't get to this level, because he doesn't WANT to discuss it. He doesn't want to further knowledge. He wants people to realise they are ignorant of something, then slides a ready made answer into the gap in their knowledge.
And they end up realizing that he has a point. He has opened up that gap and planted a seed of doubt....and hopefully they will think about what he has told them instead of swallowing the stuff that is shoved down their throats from High School and on into college, and made to feel like proper idiots if they question anything.
Giving scientists the opportunity to dazzle with scientific jargon is not what he was after. The KISS principle works brilliantly I think.
It exposes an underbelly not often seen on campuses.
'poor assessment of the overall situation'
Fair enough. But you assessment of the 'overall situation' seems just as petty and human as the next persons, including mine.
Hubris.
I like to get to the bottom of things and if something doesn't ring true for me, I am like a dog with a bone. I won't put it down until I understand. I knew there was a Creator but his purpose escaped me when I was a church member. I didn't understand anything and it was frustrating me to no end. Studying the Bible with JW's opened up a lot of doors and windows for me. (no pun intended) It filled in all the gaps until I had a big picture that made perfect sense. It may not be that way for others, but that is how it was for me.
Science doesn't 'think'. This is a strawman.
I know science doesn't think....that is my complaint. Strawmen think more logically than they do IMO.
There are a LOT of things I don't know. I just wish others would admit the same. And no, that isn't just aimed at you, or even theists. It's a general statement.
Heck, there are a lot of things I don't know too...but finding out is so worth the effort. Getting questions answered that have been rattling around in your head for decades is extremely satisfying. Having a personal relationship with the Creator is not something you can explain to someone...it has to be experienced. This is how you "know"....not just "think" you know.