How did I miss this live - one of my heroes, Dr. Stephen Meyer! Thanks.

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.

Great discussion between Dr. Meyers and Dr. Sean shows two intelligent minds at works. Thanks.

Love Meyers's work. I hope he still isn't suffering from bad headaches.

Great talk ..... conversation between Myers and Swamidass would be fascinating...

Very much looking forward to reading Dr. Meyer's new book!

Thanks for this online interview/seminar!

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.

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.

Just want to thank you dr Meyer for your courage.

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.

Surely Meyer's contribution will be seen as stellar in years to come. SITC really opened my eyes.

Finally, the Intelligent Design folks can relax a little. The best of the materialists are actually proving our points!

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.

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.

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.

I’m sharing this on Facebook!

So thankful for Dr Meyer's clarity. Was deeply touched by his book signature in the cell

Sorry that I just now saw this, awesome conversation!

God works thru Mr.Meyer♥️

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.

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!

Great stuff guys.

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

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

Thank you😊!

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.

Excellent. I'd love to hear Dr. Meyers response to Perry Marshalls book "Evolution 2.0 - breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design"

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?

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?

I like very much this topic. Particularly, I liked the explanation of why can't laws of physics explain information.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Fascinating.

I wasnt a putting everthing under equation of Gagatta in israel i was making the future GOD

WOW!

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.

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.

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?

icg mag Dr Stephen!!

Dr. Stephen Meyer is a modern-day Issac Newton.

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 ?

I agree. God is not dead because he never existed in the first place.

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?????

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).

9 members of the evolution mafia have disliked this video so far LOL

I have been watching but more pain will come to everyone

Meyer is great. The Darwin lobby pioneered cancel culture.

Is God dead? No, not even ill. :-)

Science without God is useless.

0:00 Sean McDowell is a robot

The skeleton is equatable function

What about sexual selection? What about genetic recombination?

Didn't the Cambrian Explosion occur over 13- 25 million plus years?

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?

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.

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.

This guys mind is intimidating lol

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.

Poiuybb

Or multiple intelligence's limited "gods"

That's good news. I guess he was just sleeping.

So Stephen Meyer rejects theistic evolution but he accepts millions of years/rejects YEC?

So why did the "designer" cause at least 5 major mass extinctions? Is he incompetent or just fooling around?

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.

Proving god was ever here and was/is alive would be the first step before this presuppositional argument can get off the ground.

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.

But not an omnipotent designing mind? BTW Meyer isn't not a biologist!

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.

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.