Paul, great comment. The scenes are very much connected, not least because they show a genuine moment when Josh ‘believes’ in his candidate. What makes the comparison even more interesting is that one scene was written in the Sorkin era and the other not. This was one of the most Sorkinesque scenes of the west wing post Sorkin.
@@tyro244 They actually did not. Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the scene with Barlet, not only was no longer part of the show for the last three seasons, he hasn’t even watched them. That’s why this scene has no lift. Sorkin elevated writing so well he made strawman arguments and sometimes absolute nonsense sound convincing. Guy has a talent and this scene doesn’t have any in it.
I agree. I do so for the reason that both candidates at this time were complete underdogs and had zero shot at getting the nomination. And both were asked a incredibly tough question for which their campaign manager would have like a less controversial answer but the candidates ethos and values prevented them from doing so and they answered it as they saw it , speaking the truth as they believed in it. And that’s the viola! Moment for josh for both the candidates ! He left john hoynes after that answer from jed and went to work for him and in this scene, it made him realise that he has another jed bartlet in his hands :)
Every time Santos made a good speech about something that was somewhat controversial Josh was always surprised, the look on his face was always like damn that was good.
Josh was in idealist but, at the same time, was the ever present pessimist. Always expecting the worst outcome and when it didn't happen, he made that face.
Ya know, I was in Catholic education right up until the age of 18. Religious studies was mandatory up until the age of 16. Prayers were said every day in class. We had mass in the school chapel every few weeks. Yet, oddly, do you know what we were taught? In science classes, we were taught science. Biology, chemistry and physics, with absolutely zero religious aspects or shades. In religious studies, we were first taught about Christianity and then, in later years, theology. We were taught the theories of intelligent design, for instance...because, as should be blatantly obvious, intelligent design is theological, not scientific. Freedom of religious expression is all well and good, but science is strictly independent of theology. The two fields have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Intelligent design is a theological and philosophical concept. Evolution is a scientific theory. Trying to force the two against each other isn’t just idiotic, it’s lazy. A true believer, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew, would make the effort to reconcile the seemingly contradictary subjects, not take the quick and easy path of blindly ignoring the truth of the world.
Actually intelligent design isn't even theology. It's a proven scam and a fraud, a cynical attempt to bypass the First Amendment by dressing up unsupported religious dogma in borrowed robes. See Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005.
I had a similar experience in Catholic school. Religion was it's own class, and should be treated as such. Matters of faith need to be taught by a teacher with expertise in theology, matter of science need to be taught by someone with experience in mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. Catholics have a strong foundation in scholarship, with many early scientific minds being raised under church teachings or being clergymen. Gregor Mendel, a monk, was one of the earliest to study genetics and is considered the father of the subject, which would instrumental to the theory of evolution. There is also the fact that Catholics do not consider Christian creation myth to be anything but symbolic. Intelligent design for many people means that god wrought man fully in his image from the start. But there's nothing that really interferes with the idea so long as man eventually ended up there. The idea of intelligent design for them could mean the "7 days" were thousands of years. Of course, intelligent design really isn't my cup of tea. If we have a creator, I tend to think it's something that set us in motion rather than controlling our day to day lives.
The problem with this video is that many people believe it explains why intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools alongside science.... but a lot of people took a different message out of it: if you disagree with what your child is being taught, get involved. Many devout Christians have done just that.... they've become active in education at the regional and state levels, they have been elected to school boards... and they are CHANGING the definition of science for American children. Kids in this country are being raised to believe that intelligent design is science or that evolution is not science. We're raising stupid, superstitious children who think science is what they hear in church on Sunday.
Precisely. The took the 'get involved' in this video (although I doubt that many rightwingers ever watched The West Wing) and took it to a whole other level, where even violence is a part of schoolboardmeetings.
And what of the people who think a biological male adult simply proclaiming that he is now a woman and should be able to compete against biological females in sports? Are they "stupid"?
"I don't think religious beliefs should be taught as though they were science until they are scientifically proven to BE science." The only place this should be a controversial statement is in a theocracy.
Why would that be controversial in a theocracy? Theocracies invented science. Religious faiths have nothing to do with the idiocy occurring within our society, I blame politicians manipulating their voters. It's not their pastors to blame.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Science was invented in Europe. The only theocracy in Europe is Vatican City. I suggest you look up what a theocracy is. Bishops and cardinals were not the rulers of countries. The clergy were not the governments of countries. And it was only when the power of Christianity in Europe was significantly reduced that science took off and scientists no longer had to worry about being burned at the stake for disagreeing with Church doctrine. A lot of American pastors are not even good sources of information about Christianity, let alone anything else.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Try telling that to Galileo. Or look up Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. If you think religious faith isn't part of the problem, you haven't been paying attention.
It's a great political answer to a hard question. The issue now, in the real world, is that those who firmly believe in their faith DID in fact run for school board positions, got into positions of power, and gutted scientific education. Some children's only scientific education now comes from youtube because it's not allowed in science classrooms. Hyperbole? I wish.
He is not being rational though is he. Is he being an apologist for religion. If he was being rational he would say ID is pure bullshit from ignorant religious idiots.
If you want to learn about the bible there is a time and place for that and it's not in science class at a public school. Go to church or bible study if you so desire but don't force your beliefs upon people who're interested in learning about facts and stuff that are able to be proven one way or another.
Adding to that you could maybe make a case for that bible stuff being taught at a private catholic type of school, not that I agree with that but at least you can make an argument for it. But no way can you ever plausibly make that point at a public school that's controlled by the government and we all know that there is a separation of church and state.
Joe McKim At my school, when we were taught evolution we also were taught how the main religions viewed evolution. Rather than teaching intelligent design they presented an unbiased view of each viewpoint focusing primarily on science. I believe that teaching the philosophical leanings of certain faith groups is very beneficial as we understand each other more. You obviously can’t fit them all in there, but people need to at least know how others think and why they think that. Even if the reason they don’t understand that the Bible/any other religious text is not a scientific textbook.
I want my kid taught both versions. So teach him. The government will handle the science and you or your priest can handle the theology. The problem isn’t that they want THEIR kid taught it. That’s completely within their ability. CCD, etc. it’s that they want YOUR kid forced to learn it.
Science is fact, not truth. Fact proven through observable measurement and prediction. Some things, such as love, can never be truly measured so they can never truly be proven
Excuse me guys. Let's not go too far. Science is not truth anymore then science can tell us the meaning of life. Science by definition consists of methodologies associated with measuring data. In the grand scheme of things almost nothing is measurable so science is very limited and truth is way beyond its pay grade.
@@PaulLandoltToronto The truth is may be subjective about certain matters but certainly not all of them. For a very basic eample, if I were to pick up a pen off my desk and let go of it then it would indeed fall. That is not subjective that is in fact true.
Many believers in the Torah / Old Testament take much of Genesis to be metaphorical, and many folks believe in intelligent design without necessarily being followers of any one particular religion. And I say this as an agnostic atheist
Little did we know that religious people took that advice, seriously began getting involved in their children's education, and began to gut the sciences in favor of more religiously aligned concepts. Like "intelligent" design.
@@SonicandTheTailsbrothers Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t understand Male and Female are biological terms while men and women are gender terms.
@@BB-rh2ml Thank you for making something complicated like having a penis makes you a man and having a vagina makes you a woman. I am sorry that is so hard for you. Now kindly get lost.
@@jonblakemore6454 in some Jewish and Muslim sects, if a wife gets beat, she shouldn't go to the hospital or call the cops, she should go to a Mosque or Synagogue to speak with an Imam or Rabbi!!
@@boybawang1981 again, that's a strawman. I can find the outlier to which you're referring, but the VAST majority of Christians disagree with those outliers just like you do.
@@jonblakemore6454 I mean u can keep saying strawman til the cows comes home...these are facts. Not just in the U.S., but around the world, have cancer, well eat this berry paste and pray. STD!? Let this shaman molest u then pray. Brain aneurysm, burn these leaflets and pray!! This isn't solely a U.S. or first world problem!! This happens everywhere!!
"Many of want a version of science taught to to our kids that is in accordance with our beliefs." Ignoramus there is no versions of science is there is just science. So, basically you want the teachers to teach children lies so that they can more easily live in a fantasy world rather than reality. These people frustrate the shit of me. They think The Bible should be in Biology class instead of scientific fact which is observable.
There are many researchers, scientists, teachers, and professors who disagree on scientific views. It is frustrating I know that so many people claiming to be experts in the same field can come to radically different conclusions, but the amount of interpretations that can be drawn from what may seem to be simple and clear-cut data is staggering. I get what you're saying about how non scientific views can twist the scientific method, and distort true academia, but looking to science and putting that much blind faith in it, when there is so much we don't yet know or understand is just as damaging as replacing the parts that make us uncomfortable, or filling in the blanks with religion. The first thing we must admit before we can learn, is that we don't know the answer.
@@KejikTheFirelord yep, there's lots of disagreement about evolution among scientists, intelligent design isn't science but that doesn't mean there are "no versions of science"
@@KejikTheFirelord The difference is that the researchers, scientists, teachers, and professors who disagree on scientific views have scientific evidence to support their conclusions. It is not blind faith, unlike what filling in the blanks with religion would be.
@@KejikTheFirelord Which scientists and/or researcher are you refering to. Perhaps you are thinking about Michael Behe, who is a complete fraud, as well as, a joke in the scientific community.
@@KejikTheFirelord Those people are what we would "hack." For example, there were and for some reason are many "learned" individuals who believe that the world is flat. No amount of evidence could possibly convince the people otherwise.
Not least because they clearly haven't looked and realised quite how shoddy the workmanship is! Food and air in the same entrance. A spine on the back despite the fact we want to hold stuff in front of us so the compressive element wants to be at the front. Heads too big to get out the birth canal safely. What really boggles my mind though is the idea that god doesn't like gay men, while simultaneously believing that god also deliberately chose to put the prostate where it is.
A Catholic priest is the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Catholics do not disagree with Evolution. We acknowledge God as the Uncaused Cause but we don't claim to know how He did it. It's crazy Protestants in America that went off the rails. Christians are the foundation of rational thought in the West.
Preserving our democracy requires an informed electorate. Separating the wheat(facts) from the chaff(beliefs) requires intelligence and constant vigilance against those who want everyone to follow their own chosen prejudices.
That show was so good the writing so crisp intelligent and cogent! Then you see the reality of politics in the United States in the collection of morons that are in office running for office and trying very very hard not to get convicted for their actions while they were in office! And I despair for the future of the world.
I never understand people who obsess over intelligent design im an atheist but there's literally no reason God couldn't be in charge of evolution , science could just be the framework for the universe for whatever God each person believes in , and it's always Christians lol
Or, you know, you can teach them the religious things you think they should know at home. That is, if you're not too busy trying to force others to do that for you.
My only issue with his statement is that he omitted a mandatory point; churches have sunday school exactly for this purpose. Let our churches deal with theological discussions. I say this as a progressive christian that believes pretty much as Santos does. In a similar analogy, why am I going to learn how to play football from the English department instead of the coaching staff? Let specialist in their fields do the proper lifting.
Every single cultural European cringes in disbelief and embarrassment that this is even a question that a politician should be asked. How did so many Americans turn out to be just so simple-minded?
@mandellorian this is true in part. The DUP is Europe's only fundamentalist religious party, which almost nobody in the UK gets. Long may they be confined to their tiny enclave.
@@helpmaboabbIntelligent design is barely even debated anymore smooth brain. This is a bygone era decades ago. Nowadays it’s the trans panic and LGBT kids books that’s the main social issue in the USA
Pretty sure there's a place that is purely dedicated to the teaching of intelligent design. It's called church. Maybe if you "Christian" went once in a while you might be able to learn some of it.
I'm a committed Christian and love Matt Santos' statement here. I believe in Intelligent Design but see no conflict with the Theory of Evolution at all. Here's my personal opinion, I have no solid evidence to back it, simply a belief based on personal observation and meditation concerning how science and religion can work together. The big bang: I believe the very first atom or molecule or whatever it was that began the existence of this universe was deliberately created by God. After that things were left to proceed according to fixed laws of physics many of which we have now discovered. Evolution: I believe life evolved and continues to evolve in the way Darwin's Theory has said it does. However I believe at certain points in time God gave it a little 'nudge' so certain life forms (eg Homo Sapiens) would arrive at the proper time and place to fit in with His overall plan. I also believe Earth was far from the only planet on which this happened, in fact I think the chances of ours being the only life bearing planet in the cosmos are so vanishingly small as to be statistically speaking zero (or as close to it without being zero itself as is mathematically possible). Now to where I really differ from many of my brethren. Science is NOT something to fear or denigrate and neither are scientists even if they are atheists. In fact Science is among His greatest gifts to us and the men and women who are blessed with abilty in the various fields of science are among His finest children. God's ultimate Plan has always been for us to become like Him and that by definition must include knowing all He knows. Science peels back the 'veil of ignorance' between ourselves and the wondrous universe He created and each time a new piece of knowledge is discovered and made available to us we take another step along the road to fullfil His plan. It does not matter whether amazing people like the late great Prof Stephen Hawking believe in God or not. He believes in them and they do His work whether they know it or not. It's my firm belief that there is NO conflict between Science and Religion nor should any such conflict exist. I look forward to the next awesome discovery, whether it's a hitherto unknown type of insect or amoeba or particle or an entire new galaxy that we couldn't see before. I believe the more we learn about the laws of Physics the stronger the case for the existence of God becomes. Even Professor Hawking noted that if we evolved entirely by accident as a result of the big bang it was an incredibly improbable chain of sheerly amazing 'coincidences' that defy mathematical likelihood. I suspect one day in the future (and I don't mean after death) we'll find actual proof of the existence of God and we'll ALL be surprised at what He/She/It actually is. I wish I could live long enough to see that day in person but since I almost certainly won't I just retain my faith that it WILL come.
Is that all you can come up with? If you have something constructive to say such as what you think I'm wrong about or why I'd be interested to read it.
Ah, well, thanks for the correction. Either way it's what I personally believe. May I ask why you say you used to be like me? I won't be offended if you don't want to answer but I am curious as to what you believe now.
You wrote that you hope one day we will find proof of the existence of God. I hope that day never comes. Knowledge would undermine the existence of faith. To me, faith is a choice, and that is the whole point.
I now this was a tv show but still I always hear parents talk about having their kids learn religion or God or something like that and I wans to ask them why dont' you teach them at home.. if the school doesn't teach them what you they need then why don't you step up and do it..
The great thing about the Bartlett admin was that we didn't have to listen to this stuff, heh. Seriously, West Wing began, and ended, with Aaron Sorkin. Anything after Season 4 just isn't as fun.
the constitution does not say anything about the teaching of religion in schools..it was merely interpreted by a court at some time over the years. The first amendment merely states there will be no state religion. Very different things.
@@mball831 I prefer religion to be a private matter myself. Thant being said I also think that educational decisions should be local and not decided by some person in Washington DC. If the local people want it a certain way they should have that right.
"Many of us want a version of science taught to to our kids that is in accordance with our beliefs." Ignoramus there is no versions of science there is just science. So, basically you want the teachers to teach children lies so that they can more easily live in a fantasy world rather than reality. These people frustrate the shit of me. They think The Bible should be in Biology class instead of scientific fact which is observable.
The latter part of his comment advocated for religious people to influence and coerce the school boards to include their doctrines in the curriculum. That is contradictory to the rest of what he had said.
And with that one thought, tens of millions of Christians across the nation “got involved” with their school boards… and to this day, continue to attempt to overrun the teaching of science and rationality with their idiotic beliefs.
Isn't it amusing, in 2023, to see someone like Jimmy Smits playing a politician named Santos? And it wouldn't it be a better world if we could instantly replace one with the other?
If your god is all knowing, he would already know how it would turn out. The reason it's hard to consider is because there is absolutely zero evidence to give consideration to, that a god did that, or that a god even exists. A god has no explanatory power, you are basically saying it happened by magic.
The theological issue with that is that God knows how everything "turns out", so there would be no reason for him to need to go through the trouble of creating a world and evolution to find it out. It also conflicts with heaven&hell and this whole world being created to judge us eternally.
since god can see the future this makes no sense. This is also contradicts everything in the bible. How can a perfect system that can see the future create an imperfect system.
Worse. The role of school is to produce compliant factory workers. But we shipped all the factories overseas. Politicians don't know what schools are for any more.
@@sirequinox4874 I think it can be both. A functional society needs intelligent workers. And I mean a Society, not a sOciEtY all the edgy kids warn you about.
+MikeJames6 " Nobody is forcing you to join a religion." Um, yes, actually they ARE. Religious people start filling their kids' heads with the religious bullshit practically from birth - before li'l Junior even begins to form the cognitive skills he needs to survive. Frequently these same parents teach their children to reject science outright early on as well. Many go further still - religious schools, Sunday school, and even home schooling - all with an aggressive religious regimen. If the child is fed this shit early on, even before he/she enters preschool, I consider that 'forcing them to join a religion' - because the child is not given a choice in the matter. If this 'indoctrinte them early' shit stopped today, religion would be dead, buried, and FORGOTTEN tomorrow. And religion knows this, which is why they aggressively advocate that very sort of indoctrination.
I don't think religion needs to be cured, I just think it needs to be taken out of the government. The Founding Fathers of this nation wanted Church and State to be completely separated.
+MikeJames6 Then I have to say you are the exception, because religion has historically been intolerant of differing beliefs. It's one of the reasons I feel religion needs to pack its shit and go. You want to believe in God or Buddha or whatever, and that's fantastic. More power to you. But RELIGION does little to benefit mankind. It's just a mechanism of control and exploitation. It's little more than politics under a different banner.
Trump would have said a colossal word salad, pandered to the Christian right, completely misunderstood both science and the US Constitution, talked about his penis size, fellated Putin, declared himself God and then strutted off the stage and falling head first into Ivanka's lap
Here's a point I'd just like to bring up, without taking sides. We can never be sure about the existence or lack thereof of a god. We can't use science to disprove God either. Because what if God really is all powerful? What if he does exist, and with that power, made the big bang and the laws of physics, and, yes, evolution, and let it all unravel over 14 billion years? We cant be sure.
@@DTwxrisk I completely agree, and would like to thank you for your incredibly intelligent, thought out, well explained and backed up comment! I'd like to bid you a good day and a happy go fuck yourself!
@mandellorian but I caste quite a bit of doubt on the concept of god even with that nebulous definition. Could you clarify your point? I'm not getting it
While you are correct that science cannot disprove a deity (unless its defined properly), its also true that one shouldn't believe something before they've seen proof of it. We can't say definitively that invisible scrotums full of acid aren't hanging ethereally above everyones heads. Should we believe it because we can't disprove it or disbelieve it until someone shows some kind of proof for the concept? Its so weird that people actually bring up this up.
In the spirit of Neil de Grasse Tyson (without the PC), I offer all of you a most logical take on "god": I've made up a flyer that spells out the 'truthiness' of the "god" concept so elementary. Feel free to copy this as much as you like, EXACTLY AS IT IS PRESENTED: *_ELEMENTARY PROOF THAT THERE IS NO "GOD"_* *Introduction/Part 1:* You will need to possess the intellect of at least a 13-14 year old child with "normal curiosity." You do possess that, don't you? An intelligent 12 year old could also determine this as well. *Introduction/Part 2:* You must possess the understanding of very simple logic and reasoning and as well possess common sense. *Introduction/Part 3:* You will need to believe and accept _unconditionally_ the entire concept of *EVOLUTION.* This should be a "given," since Evolution continues to *prove itself* every day, all around you. Just look around and you can't help but see and experience it. *To NOT accept EVOLUTION*, I seriously regard you as so religiously brainwashed that you are, in fsact, *mentally ill* -- because Evolution is so obvious if you just look around. Look at _any_ image (photo, video) of _any_ PRIMATE -- that alone should prove EVOLUTION to you. Also, one of the most obvious proofs of Evolution is a mother's pregnancy. [Added: Since Evolution is *{species} change over time and a mother’s pregnancy is most definitely species’ changes - we start out as amphibians {at the least} to end up “primate-like”* ]. You can also prove Evolution to yourself if you just feel/caress your family pet if you own one; if not, then go to your neighbor's and caress their pet. *_THE PROOF:_* 1. *By accepting EVOLUTION, you have literally proven to yourself that there is NO "god." Here's how:* 2. Because of EVOLUTION, you must admit to yourself and accept the obvious FACT that *no "god" created any human being at any time.* Because no "god" created any human, there was NO biblical "Adam" and "Eve". 3. Since there was NO biblical "Adam" and "Eve", there was NO biblical "garden of eden." After all, the *entire purpose of the "garden of eden" was for "Adam" and "Eve".* 4. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," there was no biblical "forbidden fruit" (or "tree of knowledge") since in order to have any biblical "fruit," there would have to be a biblical garden" --- which of course, didn't exist. 5. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," and no biblical "forbidden fruit", there was obviously NO "god warning Adam & Eve" about not taking of any non-existent "forbidden fruit". _(Ya think?)_ 6. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," there was no biblical "talking serpent or snake" _(how childish or stupid are you to _*_actually believe_*_ in any "talking serpent"?)._ 7. Since there is NO biblical "forbidden fruit", NO biblical "talking serpent and NO "god warning Adam & Eve" about not taking of any "fruit", *there was NO biblical "original sin."* 8. Since there was NO biblical "original sin," then by simple logic, reasoning and just plain common sense, there was NO biblical "jesus christ that died” for biblical human sins." 9. Since there there was NO biblical "jesus christ" that "died for biblical human sins," it stands to reason that there was obviously NO biblical (or real) "resurrection" of this *FALSE* "jesus christ" because there were NO "original sins" for "him" to "die and resurrect" for. *_("jesus christ" was totally fabricated.)_* 10. Since there was obviously NO biblical (or real) "resurrection" of this FALSE "jesus christ," there is NO reason for any "god" to "offer everlasting life (after-life)". And, without "everlasting life," *there is NO reason for any "god."* *_ERGO, THERE IS NO "GOD." PERIOD._* *_By Penboy --- *Do not remove this authorship_*
Oh my god I hope you were thirteen when you wrote this. This argument was so bad it nearly made me a Christian again. Religious beliefs are a lot more complicated than "evolution bad." Many Christians don't even believe in a literal Garden of Eden, and there are far more views on god than a Christian fundamentalist perspsective.
@@DoctorXander It's more like YOU are [well, not even mentally 13] more likely the immature one. The fact you seriously believe in all that *BULLSHIT* proves just how ignorant and immature you really are. The bible? *_Seriously?_* That tome is totally *CIRCULAR with nothing but LIES.* This has been PROVEN DECADES AGO (actually a couple of centuries ago, but unfortunately, *the ignorant tend to prevail throughout this world* ).
You appear to believe that god is the Christian god. That's interesting. Why limit yourself in that way? It seems to me that it's just as impossible to prove that god doesn't exist as it is to prove that god exists. What we can probably say is that anybody who believes to be speaking for god/gods is a liar and, more likely than not, a crook.
![The West Wing: Chaos at the Convention [CLIP] | TNT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iz88gB1JOFU/mqdefault.jpg)
![The West Wing: Vinick Accepts the Republican Nomination [CLIP] | TNT](/img/1.gif)
This is like Bartlet's town hall in New Hampshire to the dairy farmers
No. Totally different. Bartlet had to defend a vote. Santos didn't have to. But the reasoning is similar, I admit that.
Paul, great comment. The scenes are very much connected, not least because they show a genuine moment when Josh ‘believes’ in his candidate. What makes the comparison even more interesting is that one scene was written in the Sorkin era and the other not. This was one of the most Sorkinesque scenes of the west wing post Sorkin.
Well, , to be fair, they both had the same writers. ;-)
@@tyro244 They actually did not. Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the scene with Barlet, not only was no longer part of the show for the last three seasons, he hasn’t even watched them. That’s why this scene has no lift. Sorkin elevated writing so well he made strawman arguments and sometimes absolute nonsense sound convincing. Guy has a talent and this scene doesn’t have any in it.
I agree. I do so for the reason that both candidates at this time were complete underdogs and had zero shot at getting the nomination.
And both were asked a incredibly tough question for which their campaign manager would have like a less controversial answer but the candidates ethos and values prevented them from doing so and they answered it as they saw it , speaking the truth as they believed in it.
And that’s the viola! Moment for josh for both the candidates ! He left john hoynes after that answer from jed and went to work for him and in this scene, it made him realise that he has another jed bartlet in his hands :)
Every time Santos made a good speech about something that was somewhat controversial Josh was always surprised, the look on his face was always like damn that was good.
What Josh didn't know tho was that all of Santos' brilliant answers were written for him by Aaron Sorkin.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 No, he'd left the show
@@samcook4207 Oh, ok... then 'some other talented writer', but the effect is the same.
@@samcook4207 At that point, it would have been John Wells and his writing team
Josh was in idealist but, at the same time, was the ever present pessimist. Always expecting the worst outcome and when it didn't happen, he made that face.
This speech assumes that the audience wouldn't immediately jeer and boo and hiss at his responses before he can explain anything
Well, this isn't a Trump rally. The people here actually have brains and the ability to listen without being douches.
If he talks calm and reasonable the crowd would respond thusly
@@ThomasFromTN I’ll believe it any year.
Ya know, I was in Catholic education right up until the age of 18. Religious studies was mandatory up until the age of 16. Prayers were said every day in class. We had mass in the school chapel every few weeks. Yet, oddly, do you know what we were taught? In science classes, we were taught science. Biology, chemistry and physics, with absolutely zero religious aspects or shades. In religious studies, we were first taught about Christianity and then, in later years, theology. We were taught the theories of intelligent design, for instance...because, as should be blatantly obvious, intelligent design is theological, not scientific.
Freedom of religious expression is all well and good, but science is strictly independent of theology. The two fields have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Intelligent design is a theological and philosophical concept. Evolution is a scientific theory. Trying to force the two against each other isn’t just idiotic, it’s lazy. A true believer, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew, would make the effort to reconcile the seemingly contradictary subjects, not take the quick and easy path of blindly ignoring the truth of the world.
thats cuz the catholic church officially accepts evolution and virtually all scientific theories. be thankful u didnt attend some evangelical school.
*No it isn't. It is a PROVEN scientific FACT.* Only idiot religions attempt to say what you did.
Actually intelligent design isn't even theology. It's a proven scam and a fraud, a cynical attempt to bypass the First Amendment by dressing up unsupported religious dogma in borrowed robes. See Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005.
@@DrownedInExile *Well said. I've been reminding people about this religion-losing lawsuit for years now. Thanks.*
I had a similar experience in Catholic school. Religion was it's own class, and should be treated as such. Matters of faith need to be taught by a teacher with expertise in theology, matter of science need to be taught by someone with experience in mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. Catholics have a strong foundation in scholarship, with many early scientific minds being raised under church teachings or being clergymen. Gregor Mendel, a monk, was one of the earliest to study genetics and is considered the father of the subject, which would instrumental to the theory of evolution.
There is also the fact that Catholics do not consider Christian creation myth to be anything but symbolic. Intelligent design for many people means that god wrought man fully in his image from the start. But there's nothing that really interferes with the idea so long as man eventually ended up there. The idea of intelligent design for them could mean the "7 days" were thousands of years.
Of course, intelligent design really isn't my cup of tea. If we have a creator, I tend to think it's something that set us in motion rather than controlling our day to day lives.
The problem with this video is that many people believe it explains why intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools alongside science.... but a lot of people took a different message out of it: if you disagree with what your child is being taught, get involved. Many devout Christians have done just that.... they've become active in education at the regional and state levels, they have been elected to school boards... and they are CHANGING the definition of science for American children. Kids in this country are being raised to believe that intelligent design is science or that evolution is not science. We're raising stupid, superstitious children who think science is what they hear in church on Sunday.
Well then you should get involved.
Precisely. The took the 'get involved' in this video (although I doubt that many rightwingers ever watched The West Wing) and took it to a whole other level, where even violence is a part of schoolboardmeetings.
None of those people have got involved because they were inspired by a West Wing episode.
And what of the people who think a biological male adult simply proclaiming that he is now a woman and should be able to compete against biological females in sports? Are they "stupid"?
@@johnpauljones9310 Funny you think its a simple as a man just deciding he wants to be a woman just to compete against other women
"I don't think religious beliefs should be taught as though they were science until they are scientifically proven to BE science."
The only place this should be a controversial statement is in a theocracy.
You’re all wrong.. the basis of what you’re saying seems to be protecting Christians from Christianity, which is a ridiculous notion
Why would that be controversial in a theocracy? Theocracies invented science. Religious faiths have nothing to do with the idiocy occurring within our society, I blame politicians manipulating their voters. It's not their pastors to blame.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Science was invented in Europe. The only theocracy in Europe is Vatican City. I suggest you look up what a theocracy is. Bishops and cardinals were not the rulers of countries. The clergy were not the governments of countries. And it was only when the power of Christianity in Europe was significantly reduced that science took off and scientists no longer had to worry about being burned at the stake for disagreeing with Church doctrine.
A lot of American pastors are not even good sources of information about Christianity, let alone anything else.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Try telling that to Galileo. Or look up Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. If you think religious faith isn't part of the problem, you haven't been paying attention.
2:12 it was at _this moment,_ Josh fully completely bought in
Faith is the excuse people give when they do not have a good reason.
His master stroke here was to get out from behind the podium.
It's a great political answer to a hard question. The issue now, in the real world, is that those who firmly believe in their faith DID in fact run for school board positions, got into positions of power, and gutted scientific education.
Some children's only scientific education now comes from youtube because it's not allowed in science classrooms.
Hyperbole? I wish.
today he would be chewed alive for being so rational
He is not being rational though is he. Is he being an apologist for religion. If he was being rational he would say ID is pure bullshit from ignorant religious idiots.
If you want to learn about the bible there is a time and place for that and it's not in science class at a public school. Go to church or bible study if you so desire but don't force your beliefs upon people who're interested in learning about facts and stuff that are able to be proven one way or another.
Adding to that you could maybe make a case for that bible stuff being taught at a private catholic type of school, not that I agree with that but at least you can make an argument for it. But no way can you ever plausibly make that point at a public school that's controlled by the government and we all know that there is a separation of church and state.
go cards
Hallelujah
Joe McKim At my school, when we were taught evolution we also were taught how the main religions viewed evolution. Rather than teaching intelligent design they presented an unbiased view of each viewpoint focusing primarily on science. I believe that teaching the philosophical leanings of certain faith groups is very beneficial as we understand each other more. You obviously can’t fit them all in there, but people need to at least know how others think and why they think that. Even if the reason they don’t understand that the Bible/any other religious text is not a scientific textbook.
Then don't take tax money to indoctrinate my kids to your narratives either and we have a deal.
I want my kid taught both versions.
So teach him.
The government will handle the science and you or your priest can handle the theology.
The problem isn’t that they want THEIR kid taught it. That’s completely within their ability. CCD, etc.
it’s that they want YOUR kid forced to learn it.
Faith is faith, science is truth. If God didn’t want to think he wouldn’t have given us brains. I recommend watching Inherit the Wind
Given that "truth" is a nebulous (and sometimes subjective) concept, I would say that science is not "truth" but "verified facts"
Science is fact, not truth. Fact proven through observable measurement and prediction. Some things, such as love, can never be truly measured so they can never truly be proven
Excuse me guys. Let's not go too far. Science is not truth anymore then science can tell us the meaning of life. Science by definition consists of methodologies associated with measuring data.
In the grand scheme of things almost nothing is measurable so science is very limited and truth is way beyond its pay grade.
Faith is Truth and rationally tested. Protestants are the ones who made faith nonsensical.
@@PaulLandoltToronto The truth is may be subjective about certain matters but certainly not all of them. For a very basic eample, if I were to pick up a pen off my desk and let go of it then it would indeed fall. That is not subjective that is in fact true.
Intelligent design believes not only a creator but that one point in time, snakes and burning trees could talk as well. Just remember that.
That's because "Intelligent Design" is another phrase for "Creationism."
dont forget magic apples
Many believers in the Torah / Old Testament take much of Genesis to be metaphorical, and many folks believe in intelligent design without necessarily being followers of any one particular religion. And I say this as an agnostic atheist
@@anerdyenby and ID is no more science than creationism is
@@jameskessler2588 I agree and did not ever claim such. I was responding to OP's comment.
Little did we know that religious people took that advice, seriously began getting involved in their children's education, and began to gut the sciences in favor of more religiously aligned concepts. Like "intelligent" design.
and we have people today saying men with penises are women. Science sure has fallen.
@@SonicandTheTailsbrothersThanks for demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between sex and gender.
Thanks for showing me you're clueless about basic biology.
@@SonicandTheTailsbrothers Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t understand Male and Female are biological terms while men and women are gender terms.
@@BB-rh2ml Thank you for making something complicated like having a penis makes you a man and having a vagina makes you a woman. I am sorry that is so hard for you. Now kindly get lost.
This clip finished too early. You missed the part where Santos played the man and not the ball without openly attackng Vinnick.
If only our politicians would reflect what we see here. Intelligent people leading.
I know if I get shot...I'm going to the hospital, not church!!
That's a strawman. How many churches would recommend the church as the place to address a medical emergency?
@@jonblakemore6454 pregnacies...rape, flu, fever, gayness!? There are many that thinks that if u pray hard enough, God will cure everything!!
@@jonblakemore6454 in some Jewish and Muslim sects, if a wife gets beat, she shouldn't go to the hospital or call the cops, she should go to a Mosque or Synagogue to speak with an Imam or Rabbi!!
@@boybawang1981 again, that's a strawman. I can find the outlier to which you're referring, but the VAST majority of Christians disagree with those outliers just like you do.
@@jonblakemore6454 I mean u can keep saying strawman til the cows comes home...these are facts. Not just in the U.S., but around the world, have cancer, well eat this berry paste and pray. STD!? Let this shaman molest u then pray. Brain aneurysm, burn these leaflets and pray!! This isn't solely a U.S. or first world problem!! This happens everywhere!!
"Many of want a version of science taught to to our kids that is in accordance with our beliefs." Ignoramus there is no versions of science is there is just science. So, basically you want the teachers to teach children lies so that they can more easily live in a fantasy world rather than reality. These people frustrate the shit of me. They think The Bible should be in Biology class instead of scientific fact which is observable.
There are many researchers, scientists, teachers, and professors who disagree on scientific views. It is frustrating I know that so many people claiming to be experts in the same field can come to radically different conclusions, but the amount of interpretations that can be drawn from what may seem to be simple and clear-cut data is staggering. I get what you're saying about how non scientific views can twist the scientific method, and distort true academia, but looking to science and putting that much blind faith in it, when there is so much we don't yet know or understand is just as damaging as replacing the parts that make us uncomfortable, or filling in the blanks with religion.
The first thing we must admit before we can learn, is that we don't know the answer.
@@KejikTheFirelord yep, there's lots of disagreement about evolution among scientists, intelligent design isn't science but that doesn't mean there are "no versions of science"
@@KejikTheFirelord The difference is that the researchers, scientists, teachers, and professors who disagree on scientific views have scientific evidence to support their conclusions. It is not blind faith, unlike what filling in the blanks with religion would be.
@@KejikTheFirelord Which scientists and/or researcher are you refering to. Perhaps you are thinking about Michael Behe, who is a complete fraud, as well as, a joke in the scientific community.
@@KejikTheFirelord Those people are what we would "hack." For example, there were and for some reason are many "learned" individuals who believe that the world is flat. No amount of evidence could possibly convince the people otherwise.
It's truly depressing that there are actually people out there who believe in intelligent design
Not least because they clearly haven't looked and realised quite how shoddy the workmanship is! Food and air in the same entrance. A spine on the back despite the fact we want to hold stuff in front of us so the compressive element wants to be at the front. Heads too big to get out the birth canal safely.
What really boggles my mind though is the idea that god doesn't like gay men, while simultaneously believing that god also deliberately chose to put the prostate where it is.
A Catholic priest is the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Catholics do not disagree with Evolution. We acknowledge God as the Uncaused Cause but we don't claim to know how He did it. It's crazy Protestants in America that went off the rails. Christians are the foundation of rational thought in the West.
Preserving our democracy requires an informed electorate. Separating the wheat(facts) from the chaff(beliefs) requires intelligence and constant vigilance against those who want everyone to follow their own chosen prejudices.
That show was so good the writing so crisp intelligent and cogent! Then you see the reality of politics in the United States in the collection of morons that are in office running for office and trying very very hard not to get convicted for their actions while they were in office! And I despair for the future of the world.
I never understand people who obsess over intelligent design im an atheist but there's literally no reason God couldn't be in charge of evolution , science could just be the framework for the universe for whatever God each person believes in , and it's always Christians lol
Or, you know, you can teach them the religious things you think they should know at home. That is, if you're not too busy trying to force others to do that for you.
My only issue with his statement is that he omitted a mandatory point; churches have sunday school exactly for this purpose. Let our churches deal with theological discussions. I say this as a progressive christian that believes pretty much as Santos does. In a similar analogy, why am I going to learn how to play football from the English department instead of the coaching staff? Let specialist in their fields do the proper lifting.
Every single cultural European cringes in disbelief and embarrassment that this is even a question that a politician should be asked. How did so many Americans turn out to be just so simple-minded?
@mandellorian this is true in part. The DUP is Europe's only fundamentalist religious party, which almost nobody in the UK gets. Long may they be confined to their tiny enclave.
You mean besides Europe sent its puritanical fundamentalist religious nutjobs here?
well America was founded by religious fundamentalists
@@helpmaboabbIntelligent design is barely even debated anymore smooth brain. This is a bygone era decades ago. Nowadays it’s the trans panic and LGBT kids books that’s the main social issue in the USA
Pretty sure there's a place that is purely dedicated to the teaching of intelligent design. It's called church. Maybe if you "Christian" went once in a while you might be able to learn some of it.
Zero chance that the guy wouldn’t have been yelling in real life
I'm a committed Christian and love Matt Santos' statement here. I believe in Intelligent Design but see no conflict with the Theory of Evolution at all. Here's my personal opinion, I have no solid evidence to back it, simply a belief based on personal observation and meditation concerning how science and religion can work together.
The big bang: I believe the very first atom or molecule or whatever it was that began the existence of this universe was deliberately created by God. After that things were left to proceed according to fixed laws of physics many of which we have now discovered.
Evolution: I believe life evolved and continues to evolve in the way Darwin's Theory has said it does. However I believe at certain points in time God gave it a little 'nudge' so certain life forms (eg Homo Sapiens) would arrive at the proper time and place to fit in with His overall plan. I also believe Earth was far from the only planet on which this happened, in fact I think the chances of ours being the only life bearing planet in the cosmos are so vanishingly small as to be statistically speaking zero (or as close to it without being zero itself as is mathematically possible).
Now to where I really differ from many of my brethren. Science is NOT something to fear or denigrate and neither are scientists even if they are atheists. In fact Science is among His greatest gifts to us and the men and women who are blessed with abilty in the various fields of science are among His finest children. God's ultimate Plan has always been for us to become like Him and that by definition must include knowing all He knows. Science peels back the 'veil of ignorance' between ourselves and the wondrous universe He created and each time a new piece of knowledge is discovered and made available to us we take another step along the road to fullfil His plan.
It does not matter whether amazing people like the late great Prof Stephen Hawking believe in God or not. He believes in them and they do His work whether they know it or not.
It's my firm belief that there is NO conflict between Science and Religion nor should any such conflict exist. I look forward to the next awesome discovery, whether it's a hitherto unknown type of insect or amoeba or particle or an entire new galaxy that we couldn't see before. I believe the more we learn about the laws of Physics the stronger the case for the existence of God becomes. Even Professor Hawking noted that if we evolved entirely by accident as a result of the big bang it was an incredibly improbable chain of sheerly amazing 'coincidences' that defy mathematical likelihood. I suspect one day in the future (and I don't mean after death) we'll find actual proof of the existence of God and we'll ALL be surprised at what He/She/It actually is. I wish I could live long enough to see that day in person but since I almost certainly won't I just retain my faith that it WILL come.
Horseshit.
Is that all you can come up with? If you have something constructive to say such as what you think I'm wrong about or why I'd be interested to read it.
MrPeterpiper1969 that is called Theistic evolution not intelligent design. I used to be like you.
Ah, well, thanks for the correction. Either way it's what I personally believe. May I ask why you say you used to be like me? I won't be offended if you don't want to answer but I am curious as to what you believe now.
You wrote that you hope one day we will find proof of the existence of God. I hope that day never comes. Knowledge would undermine the existence of faith. To me, faith is a choice, and that is the whole point.
A high school English teacher was pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes? Bizarre.
Santos unites believerd and rational minded
I now this was a tv show but still I always hear parents talk about having their kids learn religion or God or something like that and I wans to ask them why dont' you teach them at home.. if the school doesn't teach them what you they need then why don't you step up and do it..
The great thing about the Bartlett admin was that we didn't have to listen to this stuff, heh. Seriously, West Wing began, and ended, with Aaron Sorkin. Anything after Season 4 just isn't as fun.
A reasonable argument.
Which is why those who believe in intelligent design don’t accept it……
2022 questions to politicians: Do you believe in Q? Do you believe Trump won? Answers: "uhhhhhh, MERICA!"
the constitution does not say anything about the teaching of religion in schools..it was merely interpreted by a court at some time over the years. The first amendment merely states there will be no state religion. Very different things.
I'm not sure what my tax money being used to teach religious beliefs would be other than a state religion.
@@mball831 I prefer religion to be a private matter myself. Thant being said I also think that educational decisions should be local and not decided by some person in Washington DC. If the local people want it a certain way they should have that right.
@@vdoggydogg3922You realize that the “Some person in DC” was elected by the locals of that school district, right?
"Many of us want a version of science taught to to our kids that is in accordance with our beliefs." Ignoramus there is no versions of science there is just science. So, basically you want the teachers to teach children lies so that they can more easily live in a fantasy world rather than reality. These people frustrate the shit of me. They think The Bible should be in Biology class instead of scientific fact which is observable.
If you want to teach your kids your religion, teach them at home or at church. Why is this so hard to understand?
The latter part of his comment advocated for religious people to influence and coerce the school boards to include their doctrines in the curriculum. That is contradictory to the rest of what he had said.
And with that one thought, tens of millions of Christians across the nation “got involved” with their school boards… and to this day, continue to attempt to overrun the teaching of science and rationality with their idiotic beliefs.
Isn't it amusing, in 2023, to see someone like Jimmy Smits playing a politician named Santos? And it wouldn't it be a better world if we could instantly replace one with the other?
Reagen said: "if you're explaining, you're losing."
I would bet he didn't say that to a room full of teachers.
In other words, they aren't compatible. One is based on reality, the other is not.
I see a lot of religion bashing in the comments this video, and I can't help but think many people missed the point entirely.
What if the intention is to bash religion out of the political/public scene? That would be entirely within the point.
I always wondered why it's so hard to consider that God created something that would evolve, just to see how it would "turn out".
Bible says God was about choice. Makes sense to me.
@@craigbrush6130 where does the Bible say that?
If your god is all knowing, he would already know how it would turn out. The reason it's hard to consider is because there is absolutely zero evidence to give consideration to, that a god did that, or that a god even exists. A god has no explanatory power, you are basically saying it happened by magic.
The theological issue with that is that God knows how everything "turns out", so there would be no reason for him to need to go through the trouble of creating a world and evolution to find it out.
It also conflicts with heaven&hell and this whole world being created to judge us eternally.
since god can see the future this makes no sense. This is also contradicts everything in the bible. How can a perfect system that can see the future create an imperfect system.
The purpose of school is to make workers. There you go.
Yeah, that line about a "workforce" bothered me too. The goal of education is to produce intelligent human beings.
Worse. The role of school is to produce compliant factory workers. But we shipped all the factories overseas. Politicians don't know what schools are for any more.
@@sirequinox4874 I think it can be both. A functional society needs intelligent workers. And I mean a Society, not a sOciEtY all the edgy kids warn you about.
I hope someday soon we find the cure for religion.
Attack the other mass mental illness plaguing mankind: Conservatism.
+Mike James6 Conservatism is a byproduct of religion. Eliminate religion, and conservatism dies on the vine.
+MikeJames6 " Nobody is forcing you to join a religion."
Um, yes, actually they ARE. Religious people start filling their kids' heads with the religious bullshit practically from birth - before li'l Junior even begins to form the cognitive skills he needs to survive. Frequently these same parents teach their children to reject science outright early on as well. Many go further still - religious schools, Sunday school, and even home schooling - all with an aggressive religious regimen.
If the child is fed this shit early on, even before he/she enters preschool, I consider that 'forcing them to join a religion' - because the child is not given a choice in the matter.
If this 'indoctrinte them early' shit stopped today, religion would be dead, buried, and FORGOTTEN tomorrow. And religion knows this, which is why they aggressively advocate that very sort of indoctrination.
I don't think religion needs to be cured, I just think it needs to be taken out of the government. The Founding Fathers of this nation wanted Church and State to be completely separated.
+MikeJames6 Then I have to say you are the exception, because religion has historically been intolerant of differing beliefs. It's one of the reasons I feel religion needs to pack its shit and go. You want to believe in God or Buddha or whatever, and that's fantastic. More power to you. But RELIGION does little to benefit mankind. It's just a mechanism of control and exploitation. It's little more than politics under a different banner.
I didn’t know they had such schools in Alderaan
I'm sure Donald Trump would've answered those questions exactly as Matt Santos did.
🤪
Trump would have said a colossal word salad, pandered to the Christian right, completely misunderstood both science and the US Constitution, talked about his penis size, fellated Putin, declared himself God and then strutted off the stage and falling head first into Ivanka's lap
fuck, men acting smart
.
He says science a lot. And looks smug. Wouldn't pass the smell test in my town. Saying this as a Phd in Engineering.
The problem is these. religious bigits have got involved and that how there banning books thay don't like and push there bigit views
Intelligent design can also be proven by science… look up fine tuning discussion and Big Bang theory. Could those be taught instead ?
No it can't. ID is a scam and a fraud.
Fine tuning is another name for ID, it is not evidence.
No it can't. Look up Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005.
Here's a point I'd just like to bring up, without taking sides. We can never be sure about the existence or lack thereof of a god. We can't use science to disprove God either. Because what if God really is all powerful? What if he does exist, and with that power, made the big bang and the laws of physics, and, yes, evolution, and let it all unravel over 14 billion years? We cant be sure.
Idiot comment
@@DTwxrisk I completely agree, and would like to thank you for your incredibly intelligent, thought out, well explained and backed up comment! I'd like to bid you a good day and a happy go fuck yourself!
@mandellorian but I caste quite a bit of doubt on the concept of god even with that nebulous definition. Could you clarify your point? I'm not getting it
While you are correct that science cannot disprove a deity (unless its defined properly), its also true that one shouldn't believe something before they've seen proof of it. We can't say definitively that invisible scrotums full of acid aren't hanging ethereally above everyones heads. Should we believe it because we can't disprove it or disbelieve it until someone shows some kind of proof for the concept? Its so weird that people actually bring up this up.
And you never will.
In the spirit of Neil de Grasse Tyson (without the PC), I offer all of you a most logical take on "god": I've made up a flyer that spells out the 'truthiness' of the "god" concept so elementary.
Feel free to copy this as much as you like, EXACTLY AS IT IS PRESENTED:
*_ELEMENTARY PROOF THAT THERE IS NO "GOD"_*
*Introduction/Part 1:* You will need to possess the intellect of at least a 13-14 year old child with "normal curiosity." You do possess that, don't you? An intelligent 12 year old could also determine this as well.
*Introduction/Part 2:* You must possess the understanding of very simple logic and reasoning and as well possess common sense.
*Introduction/Part 3:* You will need to believe and accept _unconditionally_ the entire concept of *EVOLUTION.* This should be a "given," since Evolution continues to *prove itself* every day, all around you. Just look around and you can't help but see and experience it.
*To NOT accept EVOLUTION*, I seriously regard you as so religiously brainwashed that you are, in fsact, *mentally ill* -- because Evolution is so obvious if you just look around. Look at _any_ image (photo, video) of _any_ PRIMATE -- that alone should prove EVOLUTION to you. Also, one of the most obvious proofs of Evolution is a mother's pregnancy. [Added: Since Evolution is *{species} change over time and a mother’s pregnancy is most definitely species’ changes - we start out as amphibians {at the least} to end up “primate-like”* ]. You can also prove Evolution to yourself if you just feel/caress your family pet if you own one; if not, then go to your neighbor's and caress their pet.
*_THE PROOF:_*
1. *By accepting EVOLUTION, you have literally proven to yourself that there is NO "god." Here's how:*
2. Because of EVOLUTION, you must admit to yourself and accept the obvious FACT that *no "god" created any human being at any time.* Because no "god" created any human, there was NO biblical "Adam" and "Eve".
3. Since there was NO biblical "Adam" and "Eve", there was NO biblical "garden of eden." After all, the *entire purpose of the "garden of eden" was for "Adam" and "Eve".*
4. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," there was no biblical "forbidden fruit" (or "tree of knowledge") since in order to have any biblical "fruit," there would have to be a biblical garden" --- which of course, didn't exist.
5. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," and no biblical "forbidden fruit", there was obviously NO "god warning Adam & Eve" about not taking of any non-existent "forbidden fruit". _(Ya think?)_
6. Since there was NO biblical "garden of eden," there was no biblical "talking serpent or snake" _(how childish or stupid are you to _*_actually believe_*_ in any "talking serpent"?)._
7. Since there is NO biblical "forbidden fruit", NO biblical "talking serpent and NO "god warning Adam & Eve" about not taking of any "fruit", *there was NO biblical "original sin."*
8. Since there was NO biblical "original sin," then by simple logic, reasoning and just plain common sense, there was NO biblical "jesus christ that died” for biblical human sins."
9. Since there there was NO biblical "jesus christ" that "died for biblical human sins," it stands to reason that there was obviously NO biblical (or real) "resurrection" of this *FALSE* "jesus christ" because there were NO "original sins" for "him" to "die and resurrect" for. *_("jesus christ" was totally fabricated.)_*
10. Since there was obviously NO biblical (or real) "resurrection" of this FALSE "jesus christ," there is NO reason for any "god" to "offer everlasting life (after-life)". And, without "everlasting life," *there is NO reason for any "god."*
*_ERGO, THERE IS NO "GOD." PERIOD._*
*_By Penboy --- *Do not remove this authorship_*
I will quote.. minus the authorship
Oh my god I hope you were thirteen when you wrote this. This argument was so bad it nearly made me a Christian again. Religious beliefs are a lot more complicated than "evolution bad." Many Christians don't even believe in a literal Garden of Eden, and there are far more views on god than a Christian fundamentalist perspsective.
@@DoctorXander It's more like YOU are [well, not even mentally 13] more likely the immature one. The fact you seriously believe in all that *BULLSHIT* proves just how ignorant and immature you really are. The bible? *_Seriously?_* That tome is totally *CIRCULAR with nothing but LIES.* This has been PROVEN DECADES AGO (actually a couple of centuries ago, but unfortunately, *the ignorant tend to prevail throughout this world* ).
If an adult is the final evolved form of an infant, does that prove that there is no mother?
You appear to believe that god is the Christian god. That's interesting. Why limit yourself in that way? It seems to me that it's just as impossible to prove that god doesn't exist as it is to prove that god exists. What we can probably say is that anybody who believes to be speaking for god/gods is a liar and, more likely than not, a crook.
My how far the Democrats have fallen since then.
God created science. It is because we have a God of order and not randomness, that science can exist.
Which God are you referring to? Just for clarification.
Depends on the subject. Calculus is Jehovah. Morphogenesis is Lord Ganesh. Fluid dynamics is, naturally, Poseidon.
Latecomer. Catholic education ---- we learned evolution in Catholic school.
Evolution is a perfect theory and it does answer all questions. Pretending the lies of morons are kindof almost real is just a lie.
The least intelligent people always believe in intelligent design. How ironic.
It is so much ironic as very telling.