Transcription of video:

As a Scientist, I really have to wonder why this is.  

I see a lot of hostility directed against religious people singling them out for perceived injustices in society and for what the atheists believe is shoving personal religious beliefs into public scientific education.  I think they need to spend some time looking in the mirror.

What I fail to see is people taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture here.   Remember, what is good for humanity is scientific progress, but what is also just as vital to humanity is liberty.  The freedom to believe what you want about anything and raise your kids in the belief structure that YOU BELIEVE will most benefit them later in life.

Both sides of this conflict are in opposition to these fundamental tenets of liberty and science.  Before we go any further, lets get a few things hammered out here.  Evolution is a scientific theory, it is not a scientific law.  We can't put a rat in a cage and watch it evolve into a monkey.  Its not a testable theory in that sense.  Its something scientists infer based on a preponderance of the evidence.  However the exact mechanics of how things "evolve" is not fully quantified.  There is no seminal paper we can read that shows us step by step with absolute certainty the process of how modern man came into existence.  Such a "law", of course, would require total knowledge of man, which we clearly don't have.  We don't even have total  knowledge of a single cell.  If we did, things like cancer and aids wouldn't exist.  I think its a bit presumptuous of us to conclude with certainty the exact nature of our origins at this point and time.

For instance consciousness can not be explained in fundamental electrochemical terms.  The subject of consciousness is still primarily the domain of natural philosophers.

Therefore because evolution is an untestable theory, we must treat it as such.  I feel this fact is of utmost importance.  Because it means we are forcing a belief, not a scientific fact, upon the populace.  This is what scientists believe has happened, not a rigorous scientific law, there is a very distinct difference between the two.  I've yet to see a rigorous explanation detailing how cellular walls formed in pools of self replicating RNA or even a plausible explanation for where all that RNA came from to begin with given that it is impossible to know the exact state of the earths environment billions of years ago.  For all we know, our theories of the earths formation itself could be completely wrong, for instance several recent computer models of dust clouds have failed to show how such a cloud of dust in the vacuum of space could condense into a solid body planet.  What we see dust doing in space refutes this logic as well, one doesn't need to look any further than Saturn and Jupiter's rings to see evidence of this.   Recent findings of gas giant planets orbiting tightly with their parents stars also refute our standing theories of solar system formation.  Such a configuration should be impossible if stars are formed form collapsing gas nebula.

As for beliefs in intelligent design, creationism, etc.. I think its clear these fall outside the domain of objective science since postulating a god creator is roughly the equivalent of giving up the pursuit of science and throwing in the towel.  Such beliefs don't have any place in objective science and can not be proven or falsified, much like our current notions of dark matter and dark energy.

Given that so many aspects of science currently rely on untestable, unprovable, hypothesized conclusions, shouldn't the proper scientific approach be to ignore any attempts to disprove a god or to prove a god and focus solely on the objective evidence rigorous testing provides us?

I would think the ideal situation we would all want to arrive at is where science is allowed to progress, yet both sides are able to raise their kids in the belief structure they feel most beneficial to them.  The two are not mutually exclusive. 

So how can we accomplish this?  For starters, I think we should stop shoving all science down our kids throats that is not rooted in objective, falsifiable, and testable experimentation.  But since that's never gonna happen, I see one other way out.  It comes down to by who and how our kids are taught.  Really that's what this whole atheist / creationist debate revolves around.  Lets be honest, if someone wants to believe that Zeus threw a lighting bolt at the earth and created man, you nor I would really give a damn. But when that same person wants his beliefs taught in public school as scientific fact, now we got some problems.

The problem is not the beliefs, the problem is the educational system.  Money is taken at gun point from the man who believes in Zeus and used to teach his kids that Zeus doesn't exist. That's tyranny. At the same time, if money was taken from an atheist at gun point and used to teach his kids that Zeus made man, that too is tyranny.  

The use of force itself to acquire such funds lurks beneath the surface of this problem and adds considerably to the tension, even if it is never mentioned.  I would even go so far as to say any form of taxation what so ever that involves the use of force infringes upon personal liberty and is a form of tyranny.  

In a free society, children are educated in the belief structure their parents feel most appropriate.  Force is never used to coerce one man to fund the beliefs of another.  I could only imagine the riots that would come from tax payer funding being funneled to Muslim missionaries.  This means the government MUST, at all costs, in order to preserve a free society, remove itself from the educational system.

At the federal level its blatantly clear such involvement is in violation of constitutional limitations on government.  At the State level, its also just as clear that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (our natural rights) are being violated as citizens by the use of tax payer funding to force beliefs some don't agree with down their own children's throats.  We do not live in a majority rules democracy people, we live in a constitutional republic.  The rights of the individual are supposed come first.

If all schools were private, we wouldn't have these issues at all.  Parents would send their kids to the school who taught the belief structure they most agreed with.  The vast majority of citizens would be able to do this considering the sizable savings in taxes that would come from eliminating public education.  Those too poor to send their kids to school in a free society could easily be supported by charitable giving, as was once the case in our nations past.  Even today, if you can't afford to send your kid to a private school, most have some kind of charitable options to help you get your kid in there.   Which I personally find amazing given the state of our educational system.  

The second best option to complete privatization would be some kind of a voucher program for impoverished people that could help with charity cases, kind of like educational welfare.  A voucher system for everyone wouldn't work because, just like today with student loans in colleges, schools would simply bloat their bureaucracies without providing any additional benefit, driving up tuition costs in a vicious cycle of expanded government funding.  We see this taking place with our medical system and in our college educational system today.  College tuitions are sky rocketing while test scores are declining and most doctors can't even tell you how much an office visit costs, since they simply don't care, and neither do the patients.  They charge the maximum they know the insurance companies and Medicare will pay.

Back on the topic of atheism itself, from a scientific perspective, I feel such a structured belief system is inherently bad when approaching a scientific question objectively.  I think the proper place to come from is one of agnosticism.  Most of the famous scientists in history were agnostic.  As Newton famously said about gravity, "I propose no hypothesis."  The rejection or acceptance of something that can't be proven to be either true nor false is not being scientifically objective. 

Scientists should not be concerning themselves with proving nor disproving god.  They should be concerning themselves with testable, observable, repeatable, demonstratable, science.  Theoreticians have created a non-religious pseudo religion for us to consume.  It entails blind faith in things such as dark matter and dark energy, which supposedly make up 96% of all the mass in the universe, yet can't be seen, tested for, or other wise proven in a lab, much like god.  Its the scientific equivalent of saying God speeds up or slows down expansion of the universe.  Or things such as neutron stars that spin on their axis every few hundredths of a second and are made out of matter that violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry.  Ask a nuclear chemist to create a batch of neutronium for you and he'll laugh you out of the room, yet this is what theoreticians tell us such objects are made out of. 

In closing, I want you to keep these important points in mind.  

In a free society, people should be able to raise their children in the belief structure they feel will most benefit them later in life, without interference from the state.

The state has no right to tell you what to believe or to take money from you by force and ram beliefs down your kids throats that you don't agree with.  This is what fascists and communists do.  It is not what constitutional republics are supposed to do.  Notice I didn't say democracy, which is the most tyrannical form of government known to man.

That's all I have for you today, thanks for listening.