That particular debate should have ended at 3:58 with Asher's debunking of the so-called information "problem", since it was the only scientific challenge to evolution offered by the creationist side. The rest of the video didn't have much to do with the science at all.
Unfortunately, Asher's totally correct explanation seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Asher's totally correct explanation seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Because creationism vs evolution is never based on critical thinking (at least on one side of the debate). These 'debates' always boil down to 'the Bible disagrees therefore there must be something wrong with science'. It is a staggering display of non-thinking - wholly accepting as truth the words of ancient men and ignoring one of the most highly corroborated findings in modern science.
Because creationism vs evolution is never based on critical thinking (at least on one side of the debate). These 'debates' always boil down to 'the Bible disagrees therefore there must be something wrong with science'. It is a staggering display of non-thinking - wholly accepting as truth the words of ancient men and ignoring one of the most highly corroborated findings in modern science.
I'd like to ask religious believers when was the last time that the Bible/religion was able to empirically disprove previously accepted scientific facts?
Ken Ham tries to do that daily. The Bible, per the analysis of archbishop Ussher, puts the age of the planet at about 6,000 years. Thus all radiometric dating (and indeed any form of dating that ages something over 6,000-10,000 years) is wrong. The Bible trumps all science.
That's just it. People who take their worldview from the Bible (or other scripture) don't care which one has more evidence. They only care which one they believe.
Ken Ham tries to do that daily. The Bible, per the analysis of archbishop Ussher, puts the age of the planet at about 6,000 years. Thus all radiometric dating (and indeed any form of dating that ages something over 6,000-10,000 years) is wrong. The Bible trumps all science.
I have a trilobite encased in shale that I use as a paperweight that says that Ken Ham is a BS artist. The literal interpretation of Genesis a relatively recent idea that is not shared among all Protestant sects. The Roman Catholic Church won't condemn pedophilia but they do teach evolution in their schools.
That's just it. People who take their worldview from the Bible (or other scripture) don't care which one has more evidence. They only care which one they believe.
Then obviously there is no point in trying to have a logical discussion with someone who has rejected logic, for various psychological reasons. They don't want the truth. They would rather be told warm fuzzy lies that make them feel safe and secure than to be taught to question what they have previously been convinced of. I see a combination of Plato's Cave Analogy and the Stockholm syndrome in theistic religious belief.
I tend to base my choices on Plato's idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. I cannot grow intellectually if I am building my life on the quicksand of belief instead of the bedrock of fact, even if occasionally it is uncomfortable because I must reject what I thought that I knew to be true and begin anew. Liisn'tsnt worth living if I stop learning and growing. IMO
Then obviously there is no point in trying to have a logical discussion with someone who has rejected logic, for various psychological reasons. They don't want the truth.
It depends. I think perhaps the audience matters.
There was a man in the video who was part of Muslims4UK, whose name I can't recall, who became convinced about evolution, after first espousing creationist views based on misrepresentations by a religious author. When he did further research for himself, he rejected creationism.
If the debate is carried out on a public forum, it can reach people like him, whose minds are open enough to consider evidence and logic. It might not change the minds of those debating, but it may reach their audience.
Yep, very true. But they are telling themselves what they want to believe, not the truth....but then, that takes us back to creationism....vicious circle.
If the debate is carried out on a public forum, it can reach people like him, whose minds are open enough to consider evidence and logic. It might not change the minds of those debating, but it may reach their audience.
I should have been more clear in my previous reply because I agree wiith you completey. There are often people in the audience who might be either on the fence or who are open to reasonable arguments and are willing to learn and possibly change if polite arguments are put forth.
I'd like to ask that person why they are conviced that the Bible is right but do they have the same opinion of the Upanishads or the Bhagavadgita? Why is the Bible true when there is virtually no evidence to support it, especially Genesis, which was borrowed from previous religious texts such as Babylonian Enuma Elish, which was written 600 year prior.
The Bible cannot possibly be the word of god when it as written and has been edited many times by man. If it was the word of god then logically it must be written by god but that didn't happen. The claim that it was inspired by god is a cop-out to fool the ignorant who have no grasp of logic and seek to be lead by others.
People who accept every word the bible says, no questions asked, are the type who say something along the lines of, "god did this [or exists], the bible says so, I believe it." It's intellectual laziness and close mindedness. It's as if some people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Prejudice against YEC isn't the same as prejudice against flat Earthers? And we need to make YEC the subject of scientific study? We have, and found that YEC is rubbish. Giving equal standing to rubbish science is its own sort of prejudice.
I have yet to find a debate between creationism and evolution where the creationist side can offer serious scientific challenges to evolution. The highest caliber debate I have seen is with the proponents of Intelligent Design. They use mostly an appeal to ignorance and argument from incredulity as their argument but they at least make an attempt to present a scientific challenge (yet they fail).
Most every debate of this sort boils down to 'the Bible is always right'. It is 2018 and millions of people are still denying modern, highly corroborated findings of science based on the highly edited, errant, superstitious writings of ancient men with pens. This failure in critical thinking is similar to that which occurs in the anthropogenic global warming debates and capitalism vs. socialism. It is IMO stubborn, willful ignorance - arguing to cling to an idea that one wants to be true and ignoring any information to the contrary.
I had this conversation with a friend of mine a few weeks back, he is in favor of, "intelligent design", which I don't support in the least. The "creation" theory may have passed muster 1500-2000 years ago when humans were pretty ignorant with regards to science but today? Nope. Sorry. Intelligent design is simply a position proposed by creationists to walk back their hard line beliefs to better fit the science behind evolution without conceding the point entirely. In other words, they slid towards the middle to avoid being called total crackpots.
My x-wife married a guy that is a hard core creationist, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, all of that... When he told me that, I literally laughed in his face assuming that he was joking around with me...When he didn't laugh, and I realized he was serious.... I laughed even harder. I guess he thinks The Flintsones was a documentary.
My x-wife married a guy that is a hard core creationist, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, all of that... When he told me that, I literally laughed in his face assuming that he was joking around with me...When he didn't laugh, and I realized he was serious.... I laughed even harder. I guess he thinks The Flintsones was a documentary.
It's an embarrassing statement about out education system and our society as a whole that people like that can roam free in society and vote.
If creationists would just admit that they can't think critically and base all their beliefs on emotion....we wouldn't have to have this debate
The problem is, they think their beliefs are correct, and anything to the contrary is wrong and mist be ignored. Yes, it's a case of preferring emotion over logic.
Thing is, I do not think this is a result of low intelligence. IMO it is more a function of indoctrination coupled with wishful thinking. People can believe almost anything if they really want it to be true.
I think it is plain old stubborn, willful ignorance.
I do not think this is a result of low intelligence. IMO it is more a function of indoctrination coupled with wishful thinking. People can believe almost anything if they really want it to be true.
Thing is, there are many very intelligent people who hold these ridiculous positions. It is not for lack of cognitive abilities - it is something else.
Thing is, there are many very intelligent people who hold these ridiculous positions. It is not for lack of cognitive abilities - it is something else.
They cannot possibly be an intelligent person and hold these positions. People can be educated and yet not be intelligent because they lack the ability to think logically on their own. Just because they read the words in a book doesn't mean that they understand the author's ideas.
They cannot possibly be an intelligent person and hold these positions.
Sure they can. One can point to any number of talking heads who are clearly intelligent.
For example:
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental Biology from Harvard University. He serves as a research biologist, author, and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research.
Smart people are perfectly capable of believing nonsense if they want the nonsense to be true.
Smart people are perfectly capable of believing nonsense if they want the nonsense to be true. I seeded one of Dr. Jeanson's absurd articles here on NT: " The New Origin of Species ".
How can he possibly hold a Ph.D. and do research for creationism when there is no scientific premise to start with? Creationism is a religious belief that is the rejection of empirical science that surives by manufacturing loopholes and logical fallacies to trip up the ignorant. I have to wonder about his current mental heath or maybe that he was going through the motions are Harvard to earn the Ph.D., parroting the work of others that he didn't intellectually support. I would hope that his doctoral advisor would have noticed that there was a problem if he was a creationist.
How can he possibly hold a Ph.D. and do research for creationism when there is no scientific premise to start with?
His Ph.D. is in cell and developmental biology. To get such a degree one must adhere to science. But once one has the degree one can unleash one's religious views.
How this does not cause profound cognitive dissonance is another question entirely.
His Ph.D. is in cell and developmental biology. To get such a degree one must adhere to science. But once one has the degree one can unleash one's religious views. How this does not cause profound cognitive dissonance is another question entirely.
After reading a review of one of his lectures I am led to believe that he has always been a creationist and is merely using the Ph.D as intellectual misdirection for his creationist beliefs.
It also appears that he isn't the first person to use a Harvard graduate degree for this purpose.
After reading a review of one of his lectures I am led to believe that he has always been a creationist and is merely using the Ph.D as intellectual misdirection for his creationist beliefs.
So....he lied when he gave his dissertation or was intentionally misleading. That's fraud in my not so humble opinion. Don't they make you surrender your PhD when you do something like that?
I suspect that as long as he knew the subject matter and delivered an accurate thesis all is good. Clearly his thesis had nothing to do with YEC. So in that sense I suppose one could say he lied since he necessarily dealt with real science even though he believes there is 'another answer' to the origin of species, etc.
But once one has the degree one can unleash one's religious views.
And this will be very dangerous if states allow these "PHDs" to become mainstream educators in public schools.
From 2009....
A Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of Science degree in the subject.
State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.
Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board’s authority.
All colleges and universities granting degrees in Texas currently must be issued a certificate of authority by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). The certificate allows that institution to grant a higher education degree that is recognized by the state – a degree a graduate would need to apply for a teaching position in a Texas public school.
ICR was denied a certificate of authority in 2007.
HB 2800 would pave the way for institutions like ICR to grant science degrees equal to those of other Texas universities. And that possibility has critics fuming.
“Their science education degrees are greatly inferior to those at, say, the University of Texas or Baylor University or even a good community college, frankly,” says Scott. “Teaching that the Earth is only 10,000 years old is a little irregular in modern science.”
The ICR issued a statement affirming that it is a legitimate educational institute that employs credentialed Ph.D. scientists from around the country. It insisted that the “THECB has acted discriminatorily against the ICR’s application both in process and in the substance of fact,” and it said “THECB allowed influence of evolution-biased lobbying efforts to influence process and outcome.”
But once one has the degree one can unleash one's religious views.
Which is still happening in public schools in science classes where teachers are not even required a PhD.
I don't have recent numbers. The article below is from 2015. I doubt that much has changed.
According to a 2007 national survey of biology teachers, 13% outright endorse creationism or ID in the classroom, 21% lend credence to creationism or ID as a valid alternative to evolution, and slightly more than that, 22.4% spend at least one hour of instruction time—unconstitutionally—on these non-scientific topics. There are about 3 million students taking high school biology in this country in any given year. So we can conclude that somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million students will be presented with a favorable view of creationism/ID this year in their high school biology classes alone.
That is a lot of students being misled about biology’s central organizing concept. But wait, it gets worse. Unfortunately, the small minority that have been loudly proclaiming for nearly one hundred years that evolution is ungodly, have successfully sowed doubt and confusion in the general public. Numerous studies show that in every single state, a minority of citizens support teachers in doing the right thing—teaching only evolution, not evolution and ID/creationism. (See Table A3.1 in Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms . ) My home state of Massachusetts has the most evolution-only supporters, with 40.6% (±7) saying that they are opposed to ID/creationism being presented in the science classroom. The statistics get more depressing from there, bottoming out with just 23.3 (±5) opposing creationism’s inclusion in science curricula in Tennessee.
It’s no wonder, then, that a majority of high school biology teachers, while not outright teaching creationism/ID, tend to avoid or weaken coverage of evolution in the classroom. The 2007 survey of biology teachers found that a majority, what the survey’s authors call the “cautious 60%,” are exposing their students to another kind of science miseducation. These teachers either opt not to cover evolution at all, or send their students a mixed message. They might “present both sides,” “encourage debate,” or otherwise give the impression that creationism and evolution are equally scientifically valid. While this misrepresentation of science may not be as egregious as outright advocacy for creationism/ID, it is nevertheless highly problematic and it affects about 2 million high school biology students a year.
When those uneducated/miseducated kids go to college, they are going to take their creationist eduction into college classrooms where college professors teaching evolution are supposed to overturn a lifetime of religious indoctrination.
The young creationists, who embrace evolution, run the risk of being alienated from family and friends. It is far easier to take the path of least resistance if one needs social bonds with the religious indoctrinated.
One point of consensus exits among science education researchers: Religion affects how people understand evolution. “The role of religion is really robust,” said Josh Rosenau, a programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education. “I have no question that a person’s view of their own religion shapes how that person is prepared to respond to questions about evolution.”
Leslie Rissler is an evolutionary ecologist and biogeographer who taught an upper-level evolution course for biology majors for more than 10 years at the University of Alabama. Some of her students said their high school science teachers—even in public schools—skipped the evolution unit altogether or taught creationism alongside evolution as an alternative scientific theory. A 2007 Penn State study involving 926 science educators found that about 13 percent of biology teachers are openly sympathetic to creationism in their classroom. The comments about those creationist science teachers that Rissler overheard in her class prompted her research addressing evolution education, published online last fall in Evolution: Education and Outreach .
The state where Rissler taught and conducted her study is one of the most hostile toward evolution education. In 2009, the NCSE gave Alabama’s state science standards an F-minus for failing to address human evolution, avoiding the subject of evolution in general, and adding a disclaimer about evolution to its textbooks. Alabama requires schools to affix a warning label to every public high school biology textbook—the only state in the United States to still do so. Louisiana’s state board of education voted to reject a similar label in 2002 (although many of its public school teachers do teach creationism ). The Cobb County, Georgia, school board agreed in a 2006 court settlement to remove disclaimer stickers from science textbooks, and a judge ordered the Dover, Pennsylvania school system, in 2005 to remove a requirement that science teachers read a disclaimer to their classes. Alabama voted to reconfirm use of the disclaimer in 2005 in the midst of the Cobb County and Dover court battles. The Alabama label states that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that the material in the textbook should be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
To understand the effects of these state education policies, Rissler examined data from questionnaires completed by 2,999 students from the University of Alabama. Questions about church attendance helped her determine how religious students were. And Rissler asked the students what their high school science teachers taught about evolution to gauge how much background knowledge they had on the subject. Survey questions also measured how well students understand evolutionary theory (their knowledge) and whether they believe it is true (their acceptance).
Rissler concluded that deeply religious students are less likely to either understand or accept evolution than are their less religious peers. “The more religious are less scientifically literate,” she said. “The data are clear on this. It’s just that people don’t like to hear it.”
Rissler also surmised that educators who teach both creationism and evolution “are doing more harm than teaching the students nothing.” Her data show that students who were never taught evolution—their teachers skipped it—performed better on tests of both knowledge and acceptance than those students who learned about both evolution and creationism in high school.
When those uneducated/miseducated kids go to college, they are going to take their creationist eduction into college classrooms where college professors teaching evolution are supposed to overturn a lifetime of religious indoctrination.
And then they'll probably complain that their religious beliefs are being denied or suppressed, or that creationist nonsense is not being given the same classroom due as evolution.
The young creationists, who embrace evolution, run the risk of being alienated from family and friends.
Because rational free thinking is not accepted.
It is far easier to take the path of least resistance if one needs social bonds with the religious indoctrinated.
Or if one simply doesn't want to expend any energy and effort into actual thought.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There is no evidence for creation. The multi-disciplinary evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The difference in base facts is staggering.
That particular debate should have ended at 3:58 with Asher's debunking of the so-called information "problem", since it was the only scientific challenge to evolution offered by the creationist side. The rest of the video didn't have much to do with the science at all.
Unfortunately, Asher's totally correct explanation seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Because creationism vs evolution is never based on critical thinking (at least on one side of the debate). These 'debates' always boil down to 'the Bible disagrees therefore there must be something wrong with science'. It is a staggering display of non-thinking - wholly accepting as truth the words of ancient men and ignoring one of the most highly corroborated findings in modern science.
I'd like to ask religious believers when was the last time that the Bible/religion was able to empirically disprove previously accepted scientific facts?
Ken Ham tries to do that daily. The Bible, per the analysis of archbishop Ussher, puts the age of the planet at about 6,000 years. Thus all radiometric dating (and indeed any form of dating that ages something over 6,000-10,000 years) is wrong. The Bible trumps all science.
That's just it. People who take their worldview from the Bible (or other scripture) don't care which one has more evidence. They only care which one they believe.
I have a trilobite encased in shale that I use as a paperweight that says that Ken Ham is a BS artist. The literal interpretation of Genesis a relatively recent idea that is not shared among all Protestant sects. The Roman Catholic Church won't condemn pedophilia but they do teach evolution in their schools.
An understatement.
Then obviously there is no point in trying to have a logical discussion with someone who has rejected logic, for various psychological reasons. They don't want the truth. They would rather be told warm fuzzy lies that make them feel safe and secure than to be taught to question what they have previously been convinced of. I see a combination of Plato's Cave Analogy and the Stockholm syndrome in theistic religious belief.
I tend to base my choices on Plato's idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. I cannot grow intellectually if I am building my life on the quicksand of belief instead of the bedrock of fact, even if occasionally it is uncomfortable because I must reject what I thought that I knew to be true and begin anew. Liisn'tsnt worth living if I stop learning and growing. IMO
It depends. I think perhaps the audience matters.
There was a man in the video who was part of Muslims4UK, whose name I can't recall, who became convinced about evolution, after first espousing creationist views based on misrepresentations by a religious author. When he did further research for himself, he rejected creationism.
If the debate is carried out on a public forum, it can reach people like him, whose minds are open enough to consider evidence and logic. It might not change the minds of those debating, but it may reach their audience.
Ken Hamm Vs. Bill Nye... Youtube... Hamm takes an EPIC beating.
Yes, but unfortunately, if you read comments from some of Hamm's followers, they think he won that debate.
Yep, very true. But they are telling themselves what they want to believe, not the truth....but then, that takes us back to creationism....vicious circle.
I should have been more clear in my previous reply because I agree wiith you completey. There are often people in the audience who might be either on the fence or who are open to reasonable arguments and are willing to learn and possibly change if polite arguments are put forth.
And he has been spinning it ever since. Given his YEC followers, all he had to do to win the debate (in their minds) is state:
Nothing else is required. And, by the way, that is exactly what Ham did the entire debate.
As the believer would say, "the evidence is all around you."
The denial of facts in favor of dogma by believers is also staggering.
Creationism vs evolution:
Winner : Evolution (by a blowout)!
I'd like to ask that person why they are conviced that the Bible is right but do they have the same opinion of the Upanishads or the Bhagavadgita? Why is the Bible true when there is virtually no evidence to support it, especially Genesis, which was borrowed from previous religious texts such as Babylonian Enuma Elish, which was written 600 year prior.
The Bible cannot possibly be the word of god when it as written and has been edited many times by man. If it was the word of god then logically it must be written by god but that didn't happen. The claim that it was inspired by god is a cop-out to fool the ignorant who have no grasp of logic and seek to be lead by others.
People who accept every word the bible says, no questions asked, are the type who say something along the lines of, "god did this [or exists], the bible says so, I believe it." It's intellectual laziness and close mindedness. It's as if some people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Prejudice against YEC isn't the same as prejudice against flat Earthers? And we need to make YEC the subject of scientific study? We have, and found that YEC is rubbish. Giving equal standing to rubbish science is its own sort of prejudice.
I had to I laugh out loud at that one, myself.
YEC claims are every bit as absurd as flat Earth claims. Special deference to them is completely unwarranted.
(BTW, as a dentist this video must have made you cringe.)
Not too badly, actually. Orthodontic care would have been nice, though.
I have yet to find a debate between creationism and evolution where the creationist side can offer serious scientific challenges to evolution. The highest caliber debate I have seen is with the proponents of Intelligent Design. They use mostly an appeal to ignorance and argument from incredulity as their argument but they at least make an attempt to present a scientific challenge (yet they fail).
Most every debate of this sort boils down to 'the Bible is always right'. It is 2018 and millions of people are still denying modern, highly corroborated findings of science based on the highly edited, errant, superstitious writings of ancient men with pens. This failure in critical thinking is similar to that which occurs in the anthropogenic global warming debates and capitalism vs. socialism. It is IMO stubborn, willful ignorance - arguing to cling to an idea that one wants to be true and ignoring any information to the contrary.
I had this conversation with a friend of mine a few weeks back, he is in favor of, "intelligent design", which I don't support in the least. The "creation" theory may have passed muster 1500-2000 years ago when humans were pretty ignorant with regards to science but today? Nope. Sorry. Intelligent design is simply a position proposed by creationists to walk back their hard line beliefs to better fit the science behind evolution without conceding the point entirely. In other words, they slid towards the middle to avoid being called total crackpots.
My x-wife married a guy that is a hard core creationist, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, all of that... When he told me that, I literally laughed in his face assuming that he was joking around with me...When he didn't laugh, and I realized he was serious.... I laughed even harder. I guess he thinks The Flintsones was a documentary.
It's an embarrassing statement about out education system and our society as a whole that people like that can roam free in society and vote.
If creationists would just admit that they can't think critically and base all their beliefs on emotion....we wouldn't have to have this debate
The problem is, they think their beliefs are correct, and anything to the contrary is wrong and mist be ignored. Yes, it's a case of preferring emotion over logic.
We know that they are quite wrong and we should just ignore their seeds and not even try to educate them. They're dumb and that's that
Thing is, I do not think this is a result of low intelligence. IMO it is more a function of indoctrination coupled with wishful thinking. People can believe almost anything if they really want it to be true.
I think it is plain old stubborn, willful ignorance.
I'm sure low intelligence doesn't help with that.
Thing is, there are many very intelligent people who hold these ridiculous positions. It is not for lack of cognitive abilities - it is something else.
True. it boggles the mind.
Indoctrination maybe? Delusion? Emotional comfort/appeal? All of the above?
They cannot possibly be an intelligent person and hold these positions. People can be educated and yet not be intelligent because they lack the ability to think logically on their own. Just because they read the words in a book doesn't mean that they understand the author's ideas.
Well, I certainly can't take them seriously...on anything
Sure they can. One can point to any number of talking heads who are clearly intelligent.
For example:
Smart people are perfectly capable of believing nonsense if they want the nonsense to be true.
I seeded one of Dr. Jeanson's absurd articles here on NT: " The New Origin of Species ".
How can he possibly hold a Ph.D. and do research for creationism when there is no scientific premise to start with? Creationism is a religious belief that is the rejection of empirical science that surives by manufacturing loopholes and logical fallacies to trip up the ignorant. I have to wonder about his current mental heath or maybe that he was going through the motions are Harvard to earn the Ph.D., parroting the work of others that he didn't intellectually support. I would hope that his doctoral advisor would have noticed that there was a problem if he was a creationist.
I think he should have to surrender his doctorate in Cell Biology.
His Ph.D. is in cell and developmental biology. To get such a degree one must adhere to science. But once one has the degree one can unleash one's religious views.
How this does not cause profound cognitive dissonance is another question entirely.
After reading a review of one of his lectures I am led to believe that he has always been a creationist and is merely using the Ph.D as intellectual misdirection for his creationist beliefs.
It also appears that he isn't the first person to use a Harvard graduate degree for this purpose.
I fully agree.
So....he lied when he gave his dissertation or was intentionally misleading. That's fraud in my not so humble opinion. Don't they make you surrender your PhD when you do something like that?
I suspect that as long as he knew the subject matter and delivered an accurate thesis all is good. Clearly his thesis had nothing to do with YEC. So in that sense I suppose one could say he lied since he necessarily dealt with real science even though he believes there is 'another answer' to the origin of species, etc.
I still think he's a con man
He certainly is now. He is spreading nonsense and trying to portray it as science.
And this will be very dangerous if states allow these "PHDs" to become mainstream educators in public schools.
From 2009....
Which is still happening in public schools in science classes where teachers are not even required a PhD.
I don't have recent numbers. The article below is from 2015. I doubt that much has changed.
When those uneducated/miseducated kids go to college, they are going to take their creationist eduction into college classrooms where college professors teaching evolution are supposed to overturn a lifetime of religious indoctrination.
The young creationists, who embrace evolution, run the risk of being alienated from family and friends. It is far easier to take the path of least resistance if one needs social bonds with the religious indoctrinated.
And then they'll probably complain that their religious beliefs are being denied or suppressed, or that creationist nonsense is not being given the same classroom due as evolution.
Because rational free thinking is not accepted.
Or if one simply doesn't want to expend any energy and effort into actual thought.