How did I miss this live - one of my heroes, Dr. Stephen Meyer! Thanks.
@scottdetter3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, my too I though I saw everything he has done.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@scottdetter Did you see where he and his crony cheated the peer review process at PBSW to sneak a pathetic essay into a journal of scientific research?
@jeffclark26753 жыл бұрын
When you look at a Stephen you are looking at a giant in his field, living and working in our current time. How fortunate we are to benefit from his groundbreaking work. What may be even more impressive than his intellect is his courage. This man is under constant attack from the secular world. can you imagine being ridiculed and minimized by your piers and still pressing forth in the same field? Please pray the covering of the blood of Jesus upon him.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
"you are looking at a giant in his field"- what "field" is that? Harassing school boards to peddle religion in science classes? Heads up: Almost no one in the secular or religious world has ever heard or will ever hear of Meyer. Outside of right wing circles in the US and in the Muslim world the debate over the validity of evolution has been over for many decades. How "courageous" do you have to be to distort and abuse the work of actual scientists to peddle your religion?
@jeffclark26752 жыл бұрын
@@mcmanustony im so sorry...there is a lot i could say to counter your response but i dont feel like you responded to me in a respectful or good natured way . God is teaching me to not spend the precious time he gave me in this beautiful world engaging with people who are hostile to me (2 timothy 2:16 shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.) but rather to try and spend more time loving and helping others. so i will just wish you a good day
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@jeffclark2675 There's nothing BAD natured in pointing out the truth. Meyer is a charlatan and a dangerous one who spends his working life lying to adults with a view to getting a crack at lying to their children in school science classes. He talks about "attending" a conference in London. He was not an invited speaker, presented no work and has completely and quite deliberately misrepresented the work of those who did. They did not discuss his Cambrian "problem" as it isn't a problem and they wasted no time engaging with his incoherent woo about "information". He was an uninvited SPECTATOR. He is not ridiculed by his peers. His peers are fanatical religious zealots. He is DEBUNKED by the scientists whose work he abuses. Your inability to address the issues is duly noted.
@bluejysm20073 жыл бұрын
Great discussion between Dr. Meyers and Dr. Sean shows two intelligent minds at works. Thanks.
@scooner674 жыл бұрын
Love Meyers's work. I hope he still isn't suffering from bad headaches.
@shantatamang98324 жыл бұрын
Great talk ..... conversation between Myers and Swamidass would be fascinating...
@neilenglish74334 жыл бұрын
Very much looking forward to reading Dr. Meyer's new book!
@thetexaseagle4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this online interview/seminar!
@petermathieson56922 жыл бұрын
Very good discussion. Seen many discusions with Dr. Meyer but this was one of the best, largely due to the interviewing skill of Dr. McDowell.
@SeanMcDowell2 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@hhstark86633 жыл бұрын
This is what I understood from it after reading Stephen Meyer book "the return of the god hypothesis". :) This is the recent empirical evidence from the 20th century that all scientists agree on: - *Finding #1:* The universe has a definite singular beginning (Big Bang did not cause the origin of the universe, it was merely an effect. An effect is the result of a cause. The cause cannot consist of space, time, matter or energy since those come into existence at the beginning of the universe. The causal profile of any postuled explanation for the origin of the universe must then transcend the domains of space, time, matter or energy and make a dramatic change of state from nothing physical to everything that exists.) Previously, everyone thought that the universe was eternal and ever-present with no definite beginning. Now, there is a beginning, which coincidentally also rhymes well with the account in Genesis which states that the universe has a beginning. - *Finding #2:* The universe is finely-tuned in its basic physical parameters at or shortly after the beginning (tuning needs a tuner). This is evidence of design in the universe. - *Finding #3:* The digital code information and a complex information storage-processing-transmission system was discovered (complexity needs a guided process). This is evidence of design in life. There are two perspectives, namely theism and materialism. - *Theism* = god created man. A pre-existing concious transcendent being with great power and intellect is the cause in which everything came from. Here, god is a concept of reality. - *Materialism* = man created god. Matter and energy are eternal and self-existant from which everything comes from and that the arrange themselves by unguided forces to produce the first cell evolved by darwinian means to produce intelligent beings that have a concept of god. God still exists on this perspective, but God is rather seen as a concept of the mind than a concept of reality. These are the theories that attempt to account for the data above: - *Theory #1:* A single transcendent external intelligent cause. (theistic explanation) This covers all three findings. - *Theory #2:* The multiverse. (materialistic explanation) This attempts to cover only finding #2 (fine-tuning). The fine-tuning is a result of a cosmic lottery on this view. Lately, the advocates have recognized that this cosmic lottery needs underlying universe-generating mechanisms. From the two mechanisms that have been proposed, one is based on the string theory and and one is based on inflationary cosmology. As you delve into this, it turns out that these universe-generating mechanisms must be themselves be exquistely fine-tuned to produce other universes. Therefore, this explanation ends up presupposing unexplained fine-tuning and then you are back to square 1 with no account for finding #2. In summary, you have only pushed back the question of fine-tuning one generation on this theory (!). This theory does not negate the designer, since (1) it presupposes unexplained fine-tuning and (2) according to the many-worlds interpretation, there may still be a designer in this particular universe. - *Theory #3:* Quantum cosmology (materialistic explanation). This attempts to cover only finding #1 (the beginning). Quantum cosmology was proposed as a way of circumvent the problem of the singularity (finding #1) - the definite beginning of space and time and energy. Taken at face value, it seems to imply that prior to the material universe, there was a mathematical reality that existed independenty from space, time and energy. Ironically, one of the proponents of this theory, Alexander Vilenkin, has noted that if you have pre-existing laws of nature that are purely mathematical, with no physical system for them to describe, that would imply a realm of pure thought that pre-exists the universe, since math exists in the realm of mind (!). In other words, if the material universe came out of math and math exists in the realm of mind, then we are really saying that a mind pre-dated the universe (!). That has its own theistic implications of a designer, implying at least philosophical idealism. - *Theory #4:* Panspermia ("alien designer"). (materialistic explanation) This attempts to cover finding #3. A non-transcedent designer ("space-alien") seeded the origin of biological information. The problem is that (1) it does not explain the ultimate origin of biological information, it just pushes it out to outer-space and (2) that alien-designer would have to be evolved from simpler organisms and (3) it does not explain the origin of fine-tuning that has been present since the beginning of the universe. *In conclusion,* these three findings gravitate more towards a theistic explanation than a materialistic explanation is how I interprete the data. Even if there would have been a valid materialistic theory, a such theory have to be extremely theoretical, ad-hoc, convuluted, exotic and esoteric kind of explanation as opposed to the simpler postulation of a single transcedent intelligence to explain the findings in the Occam´s razor sense. Therefore, I would say that the findings are best explained by theistic notion of the design agent, which is coincidentally also similar to the designing attributes ascribed to God of the Bible, namely transcendence and intelligence hence personhood (mind, not force). One objection raised to this theistic explanation is that of incompetent design. If the information is the product of a transcendent intelligent designer, then why do we see so much junk-DNA that appears to not have any function? The response is that (1) the junk-DNA really do have an important function and - lo and behold - in 2011, the Encode Project established that the function of non-coding regions of DNA (junk DNA) is similar to that of an operating system in computers, and (2) it is only a problem for the non-biblical designer but not the biblical designer, since - as seen in Romans 1 and Romans 8 - aboridiginal design and corruption of design and decay are to be expected. ____________________________________________________________________________________ This is what the earlist scientists assumed, based on the Bible, when they began the scientific enterprise (which they had no way of nothing on beforehand): - They assumed that nature had laws. The laws of nature is a juridical metaphor with theological origin. Since there are laws, there is also a law-giver and law-sustainer. The evidence of the creator was through evidence of design in e.g. the solar system and the mathematical harmony in nature. The earlist scientists believed that natural science (then called natural theology) was a way of revealing the work of the creator. The scientists also found evidence of design in nature. Newton in his theological epilogue "the general scolium of principia" explains that gravity alone could not account for the origin of the delicate balance in the solar system. For that he said, it required an intelligent mind. Johannes Kepler and Robert Doyle was part of the scientific enterprise as a theological project (to bring glory to god). - They assumed that nature was intalligible. They talked about nature as a book - like there is a book of scripture there is a book of nature. And if nature is intalligible, we could understand it since it was created by a rational intellect (god) who built rationality, order and design into the universe. And that same rational intellect (god) built our minds in his image so that we can understand the lawfull order, rationality and design in nature.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
What is biological information measured in? Does an onion have more of it than a human? Does a chair have any? Do you have any idea what "information" is in this context?
@johncastino27302 жыл бұрын
Well said and very thorough.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@johncastino2730 Can you answer the questions above? "What is biological information measured in? Does an onion have more of it than a human? Does a chair have any? Do you have any idea what "information" is in this context?" Go on, surprise me.....
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
"in 2011, the Encode Project established that the function of non-coding regions of DNA (junk DNA) is similar to that of an operating system in computers"- no they didn't. They ascribed "function" to 80% of the genome. They were ridiculed as having a useless definition of "function". That figure was revised downward in ENCODE II and abandoned altogether in ENCODE III. You are also completely wrong about equating junk DNA with non-coding DNA. That's NOT what junk DNA means. Why not try to read books written by actual scientists and not agenda driven activist at fundamentalist Christian pressure groups. Meyer has a long track record of rank dishonesty. Why not spend your time learning about junk DNA from a geneticist?
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@johncastino2730 "Well said and very thorough"- and wrong.
I think an interesting subject for Meyers next book might be the difficulties from going from that first single cell to any multicellular organism. I mean, it's one thing to propose multicellular organisms evolved from other multicellular organisms, but thing from a single cell to a multicellular organism of any type seems almost as difficult as the formation of an initial cell in that there is no reason that I can see for a single cell to have any need or way to produce cells that differentiate themselves. I get duplicating itself, but it seems to me there must be a minimum amount of specialized cells to create even the most simplistic multicellular organisms and that to go from the single cell to even an extraordinarily simplistic multicellular organism would be several orders of magnitude of complexity.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
Why would Meyer address that? He has no expertise in biology whatsoever. Many actual scientists have researched this issue. How many of them have you read?
@theHentySkeptic3 жыл бұрын
Surely Meyer's contribution will be seen as stellar in years to come. SITC really opened my eyes.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
Have you tried actual science? written by actual scientists??
@theHentySkepticАй бұрын
Have you studied design? That is the actual issue here...
@bandogbone32653 жыл бұрын
Finally, the Intelligent Design folks can relax a little. The best of the materialists are actually proving our points!
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
and the traction of ID in science in the real world remains.....nil.
@agreen42434 жыл бұрын
Final release date of the book is March 31, 2021 !! the attached essay is a great prelude to the book. Can't wait for the release date.
@tellingtruthexperiencingli93554 жыл бұрын
Why are churches around the country not bringing Meyer in to teach churches how to push back against atheism. I have already preordered Meyer's new book.
@Polynuttery4 жыл бұрын
Jason, you are absolutely right. The churches are rather pathetic in the sense that they do not seem capable of engaging with this sort of ideas that Stephen Meyer is talking about. Large numbers of young people in churches are engaging in the sciences, at school or at the university level, but the churches never help to equip them in any way whatsoever.
@j-joe-jeans4 жыл бұрын
Perhaps most churches see through his fallacious arguments?
@thetherorist92444 жыл бұрын
I find it amusing to STILL see Stephen Meyer talking about how people lose jobs and opportunities just talking about this subject. I also want every to know that Stephen Meyer and the Royal Academy of Science in their "search" for the origin of life 2.0 ,make it impossible to solve any of the problems they are working on without them having access to all of your work where they then can take credit for it and edit it. Solving the problems they have been working on has been done. Making it public without losing intellectual property rights is impossible thanks to people like him.
@johnlove29543 жыл бұрын
@@thetherorist9244 lol. cope
@jeffclark26753 жыл бұрын
Sean Mcdowell is a very good interviewer. That question he asked about the inspiration of the title of Stephen Meyer's book and the way he asked it was brilliant. If I could make one constructive criticism though, he must have said "OK" or "gotcha" more than 50 times while Stephen was talking during the course of this interview and it brought the focus too much on him which I found distracting. Other than that he did a GREAT job on the interview.
@Myfivestarsuccess3 жыл бұрын
I’m sharing this on Facebook!
@davidshishkoff22103 жыл бұрын
So thankful for Dr Meyer's clarity. Was deeply touched by his book signature in the cell
@jeffofthehillpeople77283 жыл бұрын
Sorry that I just now saw this, awesome conversation!
@sskv194 жыл бұрын
God works thru Mr.Meyer♥️
@roberthutchins42973 жыл бұрын
You believe that?
@sskv193 жыл бұрын
@@roberthutchins4297 you believe God doesn't work thru Mr.Meyer?
@roberthutchins42973 жыл бұрын
@@sskv19 I don´t believe God exists. Were he to exist, I don´t think he/she/it would need to work through Stephen Meyer or anyone else.
@sskv193 жыл бұрын
@@roberthutchins4297 so you believe God doesn't exist, is it?
@roberthutchins42973 жыл бұрын
@@sskv19 I think that God does not exist. Unfortunately. Neither does free will exist, except in a very simplistic way.
@brunoborma3 жыл бұрын
In some sense, saying that a mind preexists the spatio-temporal universe is, from the rational point of view, circular reasoning. Because we only know of a mind existing alongside the material spatio-temporal universe. For it to make sense, one must believe in already having experienced one's mind existing outside this physical reality, what clearly extrapolates rational reasoning. In other words, sustaining that mind preexists physical reality is a matter of pure belief and/or subjective experience.
@kstevenson35044 жыл бұрын
I can't WAIT UNTIL THIS BOOK COMES OUT!!! You can get a preview of the type of information on Stephen Meyer's TrueU series Does God Exist! Fantastic information on the God Hypothesis!!!! ' (Free on Amazon Prime) DEFINITELY WATCH! Also his friend's book is called Unearthing the Bible! It is not the Bible Unearthed! That book is an atheistic book that denies the Bible. WOW I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY I KNEW THAT BOOK WAS SUPPOSED TO RELEASE THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew i wasn't mistaken. It jumped a whole YEAR! I was so upset!
@Polynuttery4 жыл бұрын
Great stuff guys.
@thomasstevenrothmbamd23843 жыл бұрын
Thank God for "Return of the God Hypothesis." The failure to consider the Laws of Nature as inseparable from the Laws of Nature's God in proper scientific research and application is destroying society. Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD Christian Minister for Biblical Medical Ethics, and therefore, Scientific and Religious Refugee from the Clinical Practice of Psychiatric Standards of Care
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
your friends and family must be weary of your constant need to flaunt your "credentials". Why are you so insecure? I've seen you post this drivel frequently.....
@chrisb61374 жыл бұрын
Axe Swamidass sounds like it'll be a good discussion. Has Swamidass done a debate with one of the big ID fish? (Meyer, Behe, Axe,)? As a backseat observe I'm looking forward to the dialogue
@SeanMcDowell4 жыл бұрын
Yes, he's had a conversation with Behe. It's on KZfaq somewhere...
@Lillaloppan2 жыл бұрын
Thank you😊!
@michaelpcoffee3 жыл бұрын
In a true scientific pursuit of truth; we would find the answer without any kind of imposed preconception. IOW; if a god is behind it all; we will find that out whether we like it or not; faith notwithstanding.
@richardredmond14634 жыл бұрын
Excellent. I'd love to hear Dr. Meyers response to Perry Marshalls book "Evolution 2.0 - breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design"
@tellingtruthexperiencingli93554 жыл бұрын
He addresses the theory of Marshall's book in a newer book called Theistic Evolution
@richardredmond14634 жыл бұрын
Ok. Thanks.
@dastutweh3 жыл бұрын
Yes, science cannot yet answer many questions without doubt: how life arose, how evolution works in detail, whether the universe is finite or infinite, why the constants of nature are just the way they are, whether there are other universes besides our universe, and so on. But do these open questions prove that God exists?
@noelajones6193 жыл бұрын
Could The Cambrian Explosion be the result of an enormous catastrophe resulting in the death of these creatures being buried quickly, deposited by the sifting action of water?
@pascotemplo88692 жыл бұрын
Aka The Flood?
@jacobogutierrezsanchez3 жыл бұрын
I like very much this topic. Particularly, I liked the explanation of why can't laws of physics explain information.
@barbarabartels54494 жыл бұрын
I am not a scientist, not a biologist, not a physicist. I am an artist and receive revelations. This is what I have received. God is a computer, our lives are designed and we are individually programmed. All of our history has been designed, anything that we think was designed poorly is beside the point. The purpose is to move humanity in a harmonious direction. Our earth is a gift, those of us who can make a difference need to do so, need to be involved in a peaceful intelligent manner. This will change the programming, we are involved. The source or God, the creator is the same thing, not separate entities, I think the entity is alien, not a body, not human. We should not be blaming each other for what's going on in the world, lets change our programming.
@scottdetter3 жыл бұрын
So....... Westworld?
@pascotemplo88692 жыл бұрын
God is a spirit, its in scripture.
@ACTSVERSE3 жыл бұрын
I'm always amused by interviewers who seem jealous of the time that they give others to speak. Laura Ingraham and Eric Metaxas are like that: talk over your guest.
@Tanengtiong8 ай бұрын
Other than salvational crosses that allow life and other natural laws to exist out of fundamental energy chaos, The Heavenly Logos or The Information is alive, that's why I believe miracles exist.
@glennb28193 жыл бұрын
Any chance of Meyer addressing the axis of evil and a geo centric universe as a sign or result of an act of God in this book?
@goldenboy78193 жыл бұрын
Fascinating.
@michaelgonzalez90587 ай бұрын
I wasnt a putting everthing under equation of Gagatta in israel i was making the future GOD
@tomk36202 жыл бұрын
WOW!
@edwardlongfellow58193 жыл бұрын
Why the need for a book which concentrates on the speculation or hypothesis of God? Is it not enough that there are a host of well-known ancient writings which do exactly the same thing?. Writings contained in a book called the Bible? However, it might be that the book by Dr. Meyer seeks to educate in a more modern and intelligent form the contradictions and duplicity found within the religious tome? However the search for an intelligent designer of life needs that we must rule out the God Jehovah as a contender simply on his history alone.
@henryfirus68563 жыл бұрын
Creation narrative in Genesis is composed of two strands: one describes the process of creation starting with "Let there be light...", (scientists call this the big bang), accompanying this creation narrative is the second narrative which culminates in Seventh Day Shabbat rest, these two narratives are intertwined together as is melody and rhythm in a piece of music. The repetitive "And it was evening and morning..." is the rhythm section, its purpose is to introduce the 7th day Shabbat, this does not impose earthly 24hr time on the creation narrative. It is unnecessary for Christians to insist on 6 x 24hr creation, but we are to maintain that creation emerges perfectly formed from the moment of its appearance. Fossil evidence confirms that creation appeared perfectly formed, there is no evidence of evolution from so called lower forms, there is adaptation, but there is no species transition. Hebrew word for "day" does not necessarily mean 24 hr earthly time, the meaning allows for very long earthly time, consistent with scientific observation. Crucial point to defend for Christians is that creation is "very good" from the get go, and does not evolve across species boundaries. Regarding nature of Man: Man is the embodied breath of Life, this breath of Life is our mind. Man consists of: physical body, the mind, and language. The physical body is me, the mind is me, the word is me, a triune unity.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
"Fossil evidence confirms that creation appeared perfectly formed, there is no evidence of evolution from so called lower forms, there is adaptation, but there is no species transition." What do you mean by "creation appeared perfectly formed"? And "there is no evidence evolution from so called lower forms..". This is untrue. Google LUCA, last universal common ancestor. We essentially descended from a splotch of bacteria.
@clintgreive4 жыл бұрын
Dr Meyer - I ordered this book on 19 April 2019 and still waiting? The site indicates it's not out for another year - is this correct?
@SeanMcDowell4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, pushed back to March 2021. Sorry, but it’s coming!
@clintgreive4 жыл бұрын
@@SeanMcDowell Thanks for the reply and I know it'll be worth the wait! God bless 🙏
@thetherorist92444 жыл бұрын
I find it amusing to STILL see Stephen Meyer talking about how people lose jobs and opportunities just talking about this subject. I also want every to know that Stephen Meyer and the Royal Academy of Science in their "search" for the origin of life 2.0 ,make it impossible to solve any of the problems they are working on without them having access to all of your work where they then can take credit for it and edit it. Solving the problems they have been working on has been done. Making it public without losing intellectual property rights is impossible thanks to people like him.
@myopenmind5274 жыл бұрын
Clint Greive ask for a refund.
@saadiahbintiabdulmanaphali50113 жыл бұрын
icg mag Dr Stephen!!
@joedanache79703 жыл бұрын
Dr. Stephen Meyer is a modern-day Issac Newton.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
In what way? Both had a bellybutton and interesting hairstyles? One was one of the greatest minds in the history of science. The other is a lying charlatan- full time activist for a fundamentalist pressure group who has published NOTHING in the professional scientific literature. One hopeless essay appeared as a result of corrupting the review process and was instantly dropped....and, that it as far as peer reviewed publications. Nada......
@joedanache79702 жыл бұрын
Bellybuttons and interesting hairstyles don't contribute anything to science or to fundamentalists.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@joedanache7970"Bellybuttons and interesting hairstyles don't contribute anything to science"- neither does cheating the peer review process to sneak a ludicrous essay into a journal of research. What, in the name of sanity, is the connection between an intellectual colossus- a man whose contributions to science and mathematics will be used till the end of time....and.....a lying charlatan who has discovered nothing, researched nothing, published nothing in the literature- a man who spends his days lying to adults with a view to getting a crack at lying to their children once his zealots have gutted science education. Are you drunk?
@joedanache79702 жыл бұрын
I will not continue to chat with anyone who is as obnoxious as you. And no, I am not drunk.
@mcmanustony2 жыл бұрын
@@joedanache7970 So, no defense of your silly comment? This is the best you can do? Confronted with facts and you run away...... hopeless.
@brunoborma3 жыл бұрын
Instead of scientists trying to create life from scratch, why not modifying the simplest life forms to make them gradually simpler until they reach a first life candidate prototype ?
@edwardwalsh547725 күн бұрын
Darwin's basic argument but wholly inadequate as explanation of initial origins.
@brunoborma23 күн бұрын
@@edwardwalsh5477 this experiment would not be supposed to reproduce the first life form (what is impossiblee, by pronciple), but to reason if it would be possible for a life form to be even simpler than forms of life we know today.
@gerrymcerlean84322 жыл бұрын
I agree. God is not dead because he never existed in the first place.
@kleisclissold88003 жыл бұрын
ALL scientists should have some level of uncertainty! Even Einstein had doubts and science doesn't deal in absolutes or it becomes a religion! Humility would benefit any scientist including the scientists who are evangelical atheists! Hmmm. Just imagine humility among the atheists, how refreshing would such humility be?????
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
So Meyer's comment: Theism is implied by fine-tuning. No, if anything, Deism is implied. A mind could've set up the initial conditions and said "Bam! Big Bang!", and then just went to sleep. Because from the BB on, everything looks unguided. But even then assuming Deism is, ahem, assumptive. The problem is the singular event that is the origin of our universe. We only have one data point. So it's really hard to try to come up with an explanation for it. In fact, the correct answer is "we don't know". A possible explanation is a mindless, infinite, timeless metaverse that births universes constantly. But that's just an invention (just like "God" is an invention).
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
1. He is saying that evidence in biology, combined with evidence in cosmology implies a theistic designer. 2. He covers those explanations in his book. The multiverse theory itself requires fine tuning because in order for those universes to have any bearing on each other, they need to be linked. So you need a universe generating mechanism that itself requires fine tuning... so rather than solving the issue, it only pushes it one step back.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
@@zacharysylvester8349 I understand what he's *trying* to say, that "evidence in biology + evidence in cosmology implies a theistic designer". And I'm saying that it's an error. Again, if anything it implies a deistic designer, and again, because we only have one data point, it's an assumptive argument. We just don't really know. His explanations in his book have been roundly criticized by real scientists. You do understand that he's just a Christian starting with his beliefs as being "true", and then he tries his hardest to "prove them", which is the wrong way to do Science. The "multiverse theory" is a misnomer (imho), I call it the "metaverse theory", this "thing" that births universes (ie, the metaverse produces the multiverse). And who said anything about "they need to be linked"? What does that mean? Is the link simply that they were birthed from the same place according to the same rules? Ok, sure. But since we have no idea what this "metaverse" looks like, what the "rules" are, making assumptions about it (like "it's fine tuned") is just that, an assumption. We just don't know. And as to "pushing it one step back", sure, at some point you have to end at something (at least in our limited understanding of the natural world). You can posit that the "something" is the god as described in the bible, and I can posit that it's this vague, unintelligent metaverse. We're both just making something up. But I guarantee that the probability of the God in the Bible, or the one in the Koran, or the many in the Vedas, being correct? That probability is close to ZERO. It was just ancient men trying to figure out the deepest questions, and inventing answers. My position is that these questions are so unanswerable, and so difficult to dig into, that for know, we're stuck with one big "We don't know". Maybe if we're around another 1B years, we'll have learned a lot more about these things.
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
@@hongotedesco8931 I know who he is and his backgrounds, and I’ve read the criticisms he’s received. Most are ad-hominem, and don’t actually address his points head on. The few that do at best, never actually solve the issue, they only push it one step back. (E.g dGRNs with Charles Marshall). He follows the evidence very well, and then puts forward inferences from the data, not to mention that fact that he work very closely with many ‘real scientist’. You’re also wrong about biology implying a deistic designer. Through the history of life we see many infusions of new body plans appearing suddenly (such as the Cambrian explosion) which would imply an intervening theistic designer. The multiverse (or meta verse) theory was put forward to essentially cover all possibilities and address the fine tuning (of the universal constants that make life possible) argument. You have a large (or infinite) number of universes, and one of them is going to match the conditions of ours. So the probability of our universe existing is significantly higher (if there are an infinite number it goes to 1). But this is only the case if all of these universes are somehow linked, otherwise they would have no bearing on the probability of one another and therefore the fine tuning would be just as significant for any one of them and just as improbable. But for them to be linked you’d need some kind of mechanism responsible for that, which itself would have fine tuning that needs to be accounted for. I’ve had this debate many times and honestly, it never ends.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
@@zacharysylvester8349 Most of the criticism is ad hominem? Nonsense. The criticism is all about the science. And as to "solving the issue", they don't need to solve the issue. Eg, we don't know how life originated, but we're not going to assume that "god did it", because that would be idiotic. We'll keep looking until science gives us a reasonable explanation, or we'll just say "we don't know". This is the fallacy of ID, they're saying "ah, we don't know, therefore ID did it". That's silly. Ditto for the cambrian explosion. Many theories on the table re: why the explosion, nothing solid/confirmed, but way, way better than "god did it". Again, that's just silly. As to "universes somehow linked" in discussing probability. You misunderstand probability. Eg, what is the probability of my flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads every time? Is each flip somehow linked to the previous flip? Absolutely not. Each flip is independent of any other flip, no linkage whatsoever. Ditto for universe creation. And yeah, I've had this debate many times as well. Some people just aren't capable of saying "hmm, yeah, we don't know".
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
@@hongotedesco8931 I’ve read them, most either invoke straw man counters, or outright ad-hominem. The best case, like I said before is that they posit an explanation that pre-supposes the very question they are trying to answer in the first place. That often makes the underlying problem even harder to solve because by pushing the argument one step back, you give yourself a tighter window in which to explain the cause which means you are further away from the target than you were initially. Furthermore, the case for ID is precisely what we do know about life, not what we don’t know. I don’t think you understand how probability works. Yes, the probability of you landing on heads 10 times in a row is 1/2^10 which is dependent on the number of events and possible outcomes. The events are all linked in that they are part of the same sample. So you need a mechanism capable of producing a sample of universes that would ensure the probabilistic resources for generating a universe identical to ours is sufficient, in that it makes the outcome likely or guaranteed (if infinite). This is acknowledged for all models proposed thus far, whether it be the string theoretical landscape or inflationary cosmology. I’m not saying I know definitively, rather I’m saying that the better explanation is design. We know what it takes to form sequence specific information from our own uniform and repeated experience. It always requires deliberated input and can never be accounted for by a mindless material process.
@venrazonemos71963 жыл бұрын
9 members of the evolution mafia have disliked this video so far LOL
@unkowntheunkownsatoshi48422 жыл бұрын
I have been watching but more pain will come to everyone
@BibleSongs10 ай бұрын
Meyer is great. The Darwin lobby pioneered cancel culture.
@stevenwiederholt70003 жыл бұрын
Is God dead? No, not even ill. :-)
@302indian3 жыл бұрын
Missing in action !
@stevenwiederholt70003 жыл бұрын
@@302indian Nope.
@infinitrixtv58473 жыл бұрын
Science without God is useless.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
Science is by definition, without God, and it's been *supremely* useful. What are you really saying?
@infinitrixtv58473 жыл бұрын
It's your own definition, not what science really is. And where did you get that kind of definition anyway? From your biased position? No way.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
@@infinitrixtv5847 What do you mean "my own definition"? Just look at the wikipedia entry for science, no mention of god or religion. Science is a secular pursuit. And more to the point, it's tremendously useful w/o god/religion needed. Understand that your initial comment, at face value, is just completely wrong.
@infinitrixtv58473 жыл бұрын
@@hongotedesco8931 Well, still it doesn't make any sense at all. Science never abolished God either, and you cannot find any evidence that is fitting enough to conclude that there's no need for a Creator. Nothing doesn't create anything. You can only have building because someone built it, a painting because there's a painter who painted it. Those objects didn't appeared out of nowhere, and you can't expect a human being appeared out of your wardrobe. So you're defining science based on materialistic perspective, despite the fact that most of the founders of science are actually theist and most are Christians.
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
@@infinitrixtv5847 Whoa, first "it doesn't make any sense at all". What are you talking about here? I don't know what you're referring to. And "Science never abolished God either". Nobody is saying that, Science doesn't say anything about god. But it is the case that when Science tries to explain the natural world, it does not rely on god for an explanation. And we *know* that there is a creator, we just don't know what it looks like. The only attribute we can accord the creator: it created at least one universe. We don't know if it's a supremely intelligent being, or a dumb metaverse that through some random quantum fluctuations births universes (or 2 branes slapping into each other, or a 15 yr old hacker in an encapsulating universe that just wrote some code, and here we are), etc, etc.
@daman73872 жыл бұрын
0:00 Sean McDowell is a robot
@michaelgonzalez90587 ай бұрын
The skeleton is equatable function
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
What about sexual selection? What about genetic recombination?
@NewtonVieira4 жыл бұрын
What about it?
@j-joe-jeans4 жыл бұрын
@@NewtonVieira Theology can't account for any of it, beyond assertion. It in-fact argues against the knowledge of evolutionary processes.
@jeffbrooks99664 жыл бұрын
Jay Jones Jeans good news! No one is claiming that. Meyer is using inference and a method of competing hypotheses (a method similarly used by Darwin), not theology. In either case, genetic recombination requires existing genetic material to already exist, so that doesn’t challenge Meyer’s points at all. With regard to sexual selection, I don’t even know why this was brought up... we are now talking about preferences... preferences are made by mates who are competing with others... this requires genes that build reproductive capacity, not to mention the conscious awareness that one is mating... so we’re back to the beginning. How did they get to that point? This ultimately boils down to origins questions still.
@j-joe-jeans4 жыл бұрын
@@jeffbrooks9966 A lack of actual evidence, a presupposition, a bias and fallacious arguments do not constitute "a method similarly used by Darwin". Darwin embodied the opposite of that tact. Arguing against evolution BNS even if 100% successful in no manner is an argument for a god. If I disprove cats are real does than make leprechauns more real? No, "origins" is not a evolutionary mandate. That is called abiogenesis.
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
Didn't the Cambrian Explosion occur over 13- 25 million plus years?
@linkmeup20034 жыл бұрын
That depends on what one means by the Cambrian Explosion. Dr. Meyer is refering to the main pulse dated by some paleontoligists to be 5 to 10 million year time span. Hope that helps.
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
@@linkmeup2003 That is a long time!
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
@@tgrogan6049 Relative to our lifespans, yes it’s an unfathomable amount of time. But speaking in evolutionary terms, that is the blink of an eye. Long and short are always relative terms.
@soteriology10123 жыл бұрын
OK I get it but here is the ONLY problem that bothers me. it appears at least a little to bring the blind watchmaker idea at least one step closer to fruition though it cannot explain just how the process of reproduction got started it might explain how something can evolve after it does. This is the splinter in fully resting your faith in the intelligent design hypothesis if there is any truth to it. What am I not seeing here and what are you not seeing here? > kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p897ipSivZ-boXU.html or here > kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b-CWmLeoktuqc6s.html or perhaps here? see if you can figure out the scam in these videos. However I wonder if any form of artificial intelligence could have worked out the codes for reproducing cells on earth. That is another question. Could an artificial intelligence effectively become God?
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
Another Meyer error: information only degrades. No, it's been shown that say, a substitution mutation from an A to G, can in a subsequent mutation go from the G back to the A. So it can actually go back and forth.
@bradsmith91893 жыл бұрын
Statistically, it will overwhelmingly degrade. And I mean..OVERWHELMINGLY!
@hongotedesco89313 жыл бұрын
@@bradsmith9189 Ok, I guess you don't understand the fundamentals: natural selection. While mutations are random (A to G, G to A, etc), deleterious mutations end up in the biological waste bin. Even if statistically just a few mutations are advantageous, those are the ones that are going to make it.
@thetherorist92444 жыл бұрын
I find it amusing to STILL see Stephen Meyer talking about how people lose jobs and opportunities just talking about this subject. I also want every to know that Stephen Meyer and the Royal Academy of Science in their "search" for the origin of life 2.0 ,make it impossible to solve any of the problems they are working on without them having access to all of your work where they then can take credit for it and edit it. Solving the problems they have been working on has been done. Making it public without losing intellectual property rights is impossible thanks to people like him.
@jroark101 Жыл бұрын
This guys mind is intimidating lol
@MybridWonderful2 жыл бұрын
What a bunch of conceits. What's up with "the best explanation?" We don't need a best explanation. We don't need any explanation. I worked it out at 6 years old that how the universe came into creation has no value. You can't make products or do anything with that information. There is a whole slew of explanations about life that have no value because even if we have it one cannot act on them. I don't know. I don't know how the universe was created is all you need. You will miss out on nothing in life not knowing how the universe was created. Intelligent design is a complete waste of time. Evolution on the other hand is used to make vaccines and other medical treatments. Evolution regarding the Cambrian period is irrelevant and meaningless. Evolution that takes longer than the span of a single human life is not being used for anything. There is no excuse of inserting some god or intelligent design into knowledge gaps, none whatsoever. Because it is unable information. Just say I don't know.
@grayarcana3 жыл бұрын
Poiuybb
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
Or multiple intelligence's limited "gods"
@carlosreira4133 жыл бұрын
That's good news. I guess he was just sleeping.
@samueltopping78124 жыл бұрын
So Stephen Meyer rejects theistic evolution but he accepts millions of years/rejects YEC?
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
Well he is on his way to rationality!
@jimmys65664 жыл бұрын
@@tgrogan6049 There is always one guy like you; a Marxist apologist who rejects God but accepts abiogenesis which is mathematically impossible. Why are you so irrational?
@Polynuttery4 жыл бұрын
The intelligent design community contains many people from all different positions that are out there. It is a big tent. You can be a younger with creationist, or an old earth creationist, or even an atheist like Bradley Monton, and you will thrive inside the intelligent design community.
@j-joe-jeans4 жыл бұрын
You don't reject YEC?
@jimmys65664 жыл бұрын
@@j-joe-jeansYEC ? Why is that important - It's not even relevant to the discussion on intelligence being evident behind the code in DNA, etc. ID is based on science and mathematics alone and is not of itself a biblical teaching
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
So why did the "designer" cause at least 5 major mass extinctions? Is he incompetent or just fooling around?
@linkmeup20034 жыл бұрын
How did you come to the conclusion that these extinction events were by design?
@abdelw4 жыл бұрын
Your question does not solve anything. Where does the information come from? Nothing?
@deonvanwyk75493 жыл бұрын
Read ‘improbable planet’. Hugh Ross attempts to answer your exact question.
@AWOLCOOLBILL4 жыл бұрын
An intelligent designer is critical to Meyer's arguments. He states this intelligent designer is critical to not only the cosmos and then also to biology. Since an intelligent designer who fine tunes the cosmos for life obviously does not exist (see my previous comment) then Meyer's arguments simply fall apart.
@jstrejcek3 жыл бұрын
From psychological perspective Dr. Myer's seems want to prove God's existence. He wants God to be. You seem want to prove there is no God. You don't want God to be. Or am I wrong? And is it just the truth or reality you both are searching for as many others in this thread?
@AWOLCOOLBILL3 жыл бұрын
@@jstrejcek //
@j-joe-jeans4 жыл бұрын
Proving god was ever here and was/is alive would be the first step before this presuppositional argument can get off the ground.
@abdelw4 жыл бұрын
How do you guys link the belief in God with Christianity? The design of the Quran points only to one and unique possible author: God. What do we have for Christianity? Blind faith.
@kbeetles4 жыл бұрын
Blind faith is blind - e.g. all sorts of pagan gods, elected idols from fairies to ideals of political progress, from materialism to eugenics. The Bible has been studied over centuries and from all angles resulting in historical, archeological evidence of Biblical events, characters + it has an amazing consistency,which could not have been thought out from thin air by a few people. The consistencies hold over centuries, over generations and different eras. You are right, faith is not cognitive intellect, but cognitive intellect has been proven to be relevant only to a limited segment of human existence. The Christian God inspired generations, in spite of persecution, dissent and degradation within the Church, in spite of constant attacks in modern history. Christianity is a survival faith - can mere blind faith ever achieve that?
@abdelw4 жыл бұрын
@Ridge Gant I was actually pointing at the extremely amazing mathematical design of the Quran which proves, objectively, beyond any reasonable doubt that this book cannot be of human origin. The studies on this aspect are more and more numerous and I've got to say, this is incredibly good news for the people who still doubt. The Bible can never prove itself to be from God the way the Quran does it. What's incredible is that I consider the Bible to be a divinely inspired (although tempered with) book because the Quran says so.
@abdelw4 жыл бұрын
@Ridge Gant The morals are different? Could you please be more specific? I personally see a lot of coherence throughout monotheism. The Bible makes scientific statements, yes, I'm not at all surprised by this, because it is from God.
@abdelw4 жыл бұрын
@Ridge Gant Luke 19.27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" Does God love Jesus' s enemies? Certainly not. The Quran is the same.
@kbeetles4 жыл бұрын
az z - I am no Biblical scholar but Allah hates sin and the sinner, God hates sin and is willing to forgive the sinner if he/she is repentant and shows earnest decision to follow the Saviour. This needs to be renewed every day. There can be no human being who is without sin, we all fell with Adam and Eve. Look at anything in the world - it is a fallen world. The only good comes from Love and obedience to God. The only good comes when a human being can empty him/herself of his arrogant independence, his fantasies of being the new god and can open his/her heart to the Holy.
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
But not an omnipotent designing mind? BTW Meyer isn't not a biologist!
@careywaldie67354 жыл бұрын
So what? That doesn't make his arguments invalid. You're presenting a genetic fallacy.
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
@@careywaldie6735 Do you go to your plumber for advice on brain surgery?
@careywaldie67354 жыл бұрын
@@tgrogan6049 I would if he was also a brain surgeon. Meyer is educated enough to be a "biologist" whatever that is. Just because you don't have the title, doesn't necessarily meant you don't have the education to make good arguments. Like i said, it's a genetic fallacy.
@tgrogan60494 жыл бұрын
@@careywaldie6735 So he is a PhD in Philosophy much different than a degree in the hard sciences. Is he also going to defend what the Bible says about the "firmament" and the "waters above the firmament" would these (mythological) structures also be evidence of intelligent design? Think about it!
@careywaldie67354 жыл бұрын
@@tgrogan6049 Have you read any of his books? He is more than qualified to dialogue on these subjects. His dissertation was on Origin of Life studies. He has a degree in Geology and his Philosophy of science is perfect for what he does. It helps him think clearly on the subject. If you have read his books and watched him debate, it's clear he knows his stuff regardless whether or not he has a biology degree from Ferris State.
@AWOLCOOLBILL4 жыл бұрын
Meyer sees the Cosmos as being finely tuned for life? That actually makes no sense. If the universe is fine tuned for life, we would expect to see life or at least the signs of life all over the universe. And yet the ONLY place we see life in the universe is on Earth. We have yet to find any indication at all of life anywhere else in the cosmos. It is obvious that there is no fine tuning for life. If anything the universe is fine tuned to PREVENT life from happening except in what appears to be extremely rare circumstances - as we experience on Earth. What kind of intelligent entity would finely tune the cosmos so life could only exist in extremely rare circumstances - so rare that it might only exist on one rocky/watery planet in the outer reaches of one out of billions upon billions of galaxies in the know universe? The answer is quite simple, NO intelligent entity exists that had the agency to fine tune the cosmos for life to exist.
@bradsmith91894 жыл бұрын
Your conclusions are all wrong. You haven’t done your homework on the subject. If you require clarification, I’d be happy to do so.
@AWOLCOOLBILL4 жыл бұрын
@@bradsmith9189 Clarify all you want. I'll watch for your reply.
@alanbriv4 жыл бұрын
Bill, that the universe is 'fine tuned' for life is not a feeling that scientist have. 2=2+4 is not a feeling, it is a fact. You can disbelieve but that does not change the facts. Thank you very much :)
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
For life to be possible AT ALL in the universe, certain constants need to be just right. The fine tuning argument is to find life ANYWHERE in the universe, and it’s possible at some point in the future that we could find life all over the universe. Stephen Meyer did not come up with that argument 😂, this is well established in cosmology. It’s one of the reasons that the multiverse theory has been so well embraced.
@jamespanpuci5963 жыл бұрын
indeed it would imply that the universe was fine tuned for life on Earth, this would emphasis the importance of life on Earth.. We may also propose further Earths life importance based on the lack of empirical evidence for life on other planets.
@dennisheffy32204 жыл бұрын
God may not be dead, but he is definitely in intensive care and not likely to survive. A misunderstanding of cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology and evolution, is not an argument for the existence of gods.
@jerryupchurch11314 жыл бұрын
The fool has said in his heart there is no God
@dennisheffy32204 жыл бұрын
@@jerryupchurch1131 . The time to believe something is when there is convincing evidence.
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
You’re completely wrong. The more we know, the stronger the case for design becomes.
@dennisheffy32203 жыл бұрын
@@zacharysylvester8349 . You are completely wrong. Our beliefs should always have a foundation in objective reality.
@zacharysylvester83493 жыл бұрын
@@dennisheffy3220 I would certainly agree with that, but I imagine your idea of objective reality is very different to mine. There are mathematical methods that we can use to detect the need for deliberated input. We know from our uniform and repeated experience that minds exist, and are capable of design. Which ever side of the fence you find yourself on, extrapolation is always required, but on the bases of the initial two points, it is a reasonable hypothesis that there is a designing intelligence behind life and the foundation for such a hypothesis is heavily rooted objective reality.