Now, here is a stretch of a definition. Rev. David Rives turns to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of religion he gives is the fourth in the dictionary: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ". I see no attempt to define science.
The Sensuous Curmudgeon has a way of unscrambling the fallacies of argument and exposing the fraud committed in defense of nonsense. Funny and absurdity rolled up on one video piece.
My and many of my colleague's take on this Jerkoff is:
Only numbskulls would likely believe this young usurper who is trying to weasel into Ken Ham's money making pie, though possibly 70% of the US population are numbskulls, which is why Ken Ham started his ministry in the US and not Australia, where only 30% of a much smaller population are numbskulls, science has always been popular here, since the the late, great Harry Messel, lobbied and succeeded in making science and teaching Evolution and biology a priority in all Australian schools in the 1960s, he published many school science texts, of which I still have one and put science on the top of the most important subjects that any school must teach, Evolution has been taught in every school since Harry Messel made teaching science and Evolution a national priority, which the US needs to achieve. Which again is why Ken Ham moved to America, because he could not make a living here, the New Zealand idiot Ray Comfort, and now David Rives are all wanting part of Ken's creationist money pie. Rives simply doesn't want to do any actual work for a living, just live off a combination of charisma and bullshit.
Yes the fallacies run constant and thick.
He does mention science must be observable and repeatable.
He does not mention that the "Big Bang" has nothing whatsoever, is just one of a number of cosmological theories and if tangible evidence is found that it did not happen, then scientists would no longer consider belief in it. To date it is the strongest of the cosmological theories so it is just the most commonly held one, this is not a belief neither, it is considered as just a likely proposition.
No he doesn't define Science neither, in that science is composed of verified evidence, Theories and likely propositions. Theories are not beliefs.
Theories are propositions on how natural phenomenon occur and behave, which must at least have some verified, replicated experimental evidence to support it. Some scientists may hold parts of theories as a personal belief, but to generalize that all scientists do is ridiculous to the extreme.
Origins of life is also not part of Evolutionary theory, it is only concerned with biological processes found in already existing living things that produce genotype and phenotype variations and simply projects these backwards to account for characteristics in fossils that have been discovered. Which it does admirably.
Once they find a fit in this backward projection of evolutionary principles for a fossil, then they fit it into the evolutionary tree of ancestors for a particular species/phenotype.
It is not concerned with how the first living cell formed, this is more the realm of theoretical biochemistry.
One day such a biochemical experiment may produce life, but this would not be evolution, it would still be a biochemical experiment, but, once it produces genetic variants which follow known evolutionary principles, then it may become a part of evolutionary knowledge.
Rives won't get much popularity in Australia, though it would be interesting to see how much of a following he can get in the US and possibly Africa.
Likely the only two major money making regions for Creationism left in the world.
Obviously, I don't know how to imbed!