Do do do do... next stop... the creationist zone. The linked video is quite long, so I'll give highlights: an achingly sincere and condescending Kirk Cameron, who spends the whole video acting like he's trying to convince slightly dim high schoolers to sell magazines for Christ, plus some Australian guy, are the hosts. They try to disprove evolution using each of the following:
- Inability of high school students to adequately explain the theory of evolution.
- Gaps in the fossil record.
- Lack of table manners in even highly trained orang-outangs.
- Airline policy regarding orang-outangs.
- Sexism and racism in the writing of Charles Darwin.
Most head-exploding point: after demonstrating similarities between humans and orang-outangs, they show a biplane and a jumbo jet, "they look very similar, does that mean one evolved from the other?" I thought they were going to go with the watchmaker analogy here, because of course, a jumbo jet did evolve from a biplane, but under human direction. But instead, they claim the similarities are because God used a similar BLUEPRINT to design both humans and apes. Oh, I see, it all makes sense now. Your God -- the God you worship, the God you believe created the universe out of nothing, the God you believe is the supreme and ultimate power in the eternity of the universe -- made humans and apes look like each other because he ran out of ideas?
Most unintentionally hilarious host performance: When Kirk explains that the last couple of dozen times he has "witnessed" to someone, the subject of evolution hasn't come up, because "when you learn to speak to a person's CONscience" (indicated by two hands over the heart) "and circumNAVigate the INTELLECT -- " (indicated by pointing to his temple with two fingers, like he's shooting himself in the head) "the subject of evolution seems to... disappear." (indicated by an exaggerated, wide-eyed shrug and a weird circular hand motion.) So, uh, this guy originally made his living as an actor, huh? Wow.
At the end of the video, if you make it that far, you might notice they have mentioned "the fossil record" a bunch of times, but they haven't mentioned DNA once.
Do you suppose it's because DNA would provide too much compelling evidence in favor of the theory of evolution?
