🇳🇱
So I found the video in question and watched it (full 30 minutes). Skip to the end to see the relevant parts for anyone reading this:
https://youtu.be/VPSm9gJkPxU?si=eiy0g8anOoTrwV41
As for this:
> Youtuber Smarter Every Day released a video yesterday that appears designed to spread misinformation on creationism.
I dont get what you mean here. He spread no information about creationism at all, let alone misinformation. He stated that this is a focal point for those who argue creationism vs evolution but otherwise did nothing to actively promote either viewpoint, in fact rather the opposite, he suggested people stop taking absolute sides and to form nuanced opinions.
Honestly his take seemed far more honest and lacking in disinformation than usual.
> That's the one. If a creator wants to talk about their religious beliefs, great. But this video from Destin didn't do that. It was using really cool science to misinform about an antiscientific religious belief of his.
This simply doesnt track with the video... can we get specific here, what did he say (word for word example) that was factually incorrect (misinformation). I was careful when i listened and nothing he said seemed even remotely factually incorrect, so im not sure where you are getting this "misinformation" stuff from.
> Here's what happened. He read a book by a creationist on irreducible complexity of flagella evolution. And he went and talked to some scientists about really cool cutting edge science on how flagella motors work. I don't know if he read the book first or started reading it after he already planned to talk about it. He didn't say in the video.
I dont recall him saying he read a book on the matter (though that was the origin of the ensuing debate). He may just as well have just been privy to the debate itself. I am well aware of the molecular motor argument as a pro-creationist debate point, and have heard the argument many times over, but I never read the book making that claim. It is very possible dustin is int he same boat, he has witnessed the debates, and understood the point of view from the perspective of the debates, but he may have never read the book.
> Either way, the video starts by saying the complexity and the necessity of every component raises real philosophical debate about the origin of life. It, in fact, does not.
But it very much does. Not saying that scientists are assuming evolution might be in question, they very much assume evolution is still real we just dont have the answers (yet) to explain the intermediate steps leading to the molecular motor. So this is very much true, the evolutionary process leading to the molecular motor is not well known and even speculation is still developing and far from complete. While a scientist wouldnt use that to go "oh god made it", it is fair to say the specifics as to the how we went from nothing to a molecular motor is still highly debated with any scientist worth his salt admitting we cant really state the steps it took to evolve (partly due to the trouble in evidence you pointed out).
Long story short, what he said is entierly true, we do not have any good theories explaining the intermediary steps for the motor at the moment, and this leaves room for a lot of debate.
> Then, in the outro, he used more intelligent design buzz words, both sidesed the "debate" recommended a book by a creationist, and told people to look into it further.
I will watch again, but I did not hear him say anything about reading a creationist book, or even mention the book. He said not to plant your flag in one absolutism or the other and to approach this and other problems with a less tribalistic approach (defending a philosophical point).
> Anyone who doesn't already know this stuff who tries to look up papers using the buzz words he used, especially that author, will find creationist papers that appear, to a lay audience, to be scientific. But to anyone who knows the field, they are junk.
I havent read this papers so I cant speak to their quality. But again, he made no suggestion to anyone to read a book nor did he name any creationist books. He only refernced a debate some creationists have had and where it fits into known gaps in the scientific knowledge, and urged people to not be dogmatic on either side. Good advice I'd say.
> No, I won’t give you specific word for word examples, because that smells like a trap to me, and I’m not falling for it.
What does a "trap" mean.. If it means somethign that may prove your assertions wrong, then I fail to see how its a bad thing. If you think it will be used in bad faith, then when have I ever argued with you in bad faith?
Refusing to be specific and to only speak in vaguties that simply arent supported by what actually said sounds like the real trap to be honest, though if you gave specific examples I might have changed my mind.
> If you disagree with me, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not watching it again just because you can’t see my point.
The part where he talks about creationism lasts for about a minute or two, so not really a huge ask when I just watched the whole 30 minutes in consideration of your own point. But do as you like of course.
> I never said that he said anything factually incorrect, maybe you should read what I wrote one more time.
You used the term "misinformation" many times. Misinformation is by definition "factually incorrect". Can you explain to me how you feel he stated misinformation that was somehow also factually correct then? Sounds like back peddling though I give you the benefit of the doubt your discussing in good faith and it is unintentional.
> In my experience, when someone creates a straw-man like that, it usually means they have an agenda.
Strawman, what strawman is that?
> People can watch the video, and keep in mind what both of us have said, and make up their own minds.
They sure can, problem is you didnt actually elucidate your point of view or how you arrived at it in any meaningful way what so ever. You claimed he did several things then when asked for examples to back that up made no effort to really do so. Saying something is so isnt really getting you anywhere if you cant even point int he general direction of the examples that back up your claim. So you simply havent given anyone any real content with which to even consider your point.
In fact I detect a strong undertone to what your saying and defensiveness to an earnest inquiry on your perspective. It seems to me the most likely explanation is you have a strong bias and disgust on anyone who would even discuss spiritual matters along side science (even me who has not explicitly supported the argument) and that that extreme hate/bias is likely fueling your perspective here more than an objective reading. I think this is causing you to attribute things by reading between the lines that simply isnt even there. This is evident because you kept talking about a book you swear this guy is promoting and yet he never mentioned it once in his videos. So clearly you were filling in some things with your own emotional response here that led to a distorted view of what was said. Again I think this is all in good faith and not something you are doing knowingly.
@freemo @ambulocetus
Now that I picked the place where to put my flag, this video about an elaborate molecular machine is an excellent suggestion what to aim for here.
@ambulocetus I agree with @freemo: SmarterEveryDay is not spreading misinformation. In no part of the video, he lied.
The suggested book is controversial, but he warns about this, and he specifies that it is mainly a philosophical book, to read with open-mind. So, he is fair.
IMHO, the misunderstatement is here: he compares the sense of wonder observing the flagella in the small, to the sense of wonder observing the Universe in the large (and this is fair); science cannot explain why the Universe and/or its laws exist; because science cannot explain all, philosophical reflections are legitimate; he miss to underline that science can explain how flagella evolved and there is consensus about this.
He should be more precise/pedantic in the last point, but the focus on the last part of the video was about the wonder of Universe and life, and not anymore about scientific truth, so *if* it is an error, it is an error made in good faith.
> I gave you a long answer to your question that took me quite a while to write, but you replied by asking me to be even more detailed.
You did, and while I appreciate the time you spent in responding the fact that it didnt actually answer my questions or spoke in vaguties made it hard to get anything useful out of it. So i was prompting you for the clarification needed to get something useful out of it as i wanted to actually understand your point or else we both would have wasted time.
> That seemed to me that you were being disingenuous to ask for more after that, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt
The length of your response really doesnt dictate the value though does it? Your response avoided specific examples, it stated your opinions without stating any real justification, and I cared about the justification for your opinion so i could evaluate if i should adopt your opinion. Just telling me your opinions in long-format really does little to help me have a meaningful interaction.
> If you really want, we can go back to the video and download the entire transcript to give you a sentence by sentence breakdown
I asked for a line or two quote of something he said that exemplified the accusations you made. Why would I need an entire word for word transcript when all I asked for was an example or two? I mean if you want to go to that level of detail by all means go for it, but you sound like your being pedantic at this point in bad faith. Not saying you a re, in fact ill give you the benefit of the doubt still its good faith, just saying this sounds like it a bit. No all you need to do is give me a one line example of something you think resembles "misinformation" on his part (the primary accusation you made).
> I don’t want to do it because I don’t think it is a good use of my time, especially since I feel that my first reply was more than sufficient, but I will do it if you really want me to.
I appreciate the offer, but I really just need a quote or two as an example of "misinformation" you feel he conveyed. Going over the whole transcript would, as you say, be a waste of time.
> I would rather just go about my business, but I don’t like people getting the wrong impression about me.
My impression is you made some wildly inaccurate accusations on someone and then refused to take any time to explain them by pointing to what he said that resembled your accusation. Thats all. Doesnt mean im going to be an asshole to you or dislike you, there are far more serious infractions one can make. It only leads to impression that you may have a tendency towards bias against people open to religious thinking to the point that it may distort your objectivity in recounting events (a pretty common thing).. there are worse infractions.
> How about we compromise. You go download the transcript and post it here and I will do the rest of the work.
I mean, i dont think its neccesary, but sure if you'd like, here is the transcript.
