Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward | Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2022
- Stephen Meyer squares off with University of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward in this Talk of the Times Debate in Seattle on April 26th, 2006. The topic? Is intelligent design science?
======================================================
This is the official TH-cam page of Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. His latest book is Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (2021), see returnofthegodhypothesis.com/.
Praise for Return of the God Hypothesis:
"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."
BRIAN JOSEPHSON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Meyer is also the author of The New York Times best selling book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013), and Signature In The Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009). For more information about Dr. Meyer, his research, and his books visit stephencmeyer.org/.
"No one else in my experience can explicate such complex material with the grace and clarity that seem so effortless to Stephen Meyer. With cold logic and meticulous rational analysis of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology, Meyer confirms a truth that the ideologues find too frightening even to consider. By the ad hominem nature of their attacks on his brilliant work, they confirm its importance and suggest an eventual end to the scientism that warps our culture."
DEAN KOONTZ, NEW YORK TIMES #1 BEST-SELLING AUTHOR
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content.
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: / alfredrwallaceid
For more information visit
-- www.discovery.org/id/
-- www.evolutionnews.org/
-- www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow the CSC on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) - Reimagined [Live Session]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nY2PsFZFEOg/mqdefault.jpg)
Stephen Meyer : humble respectful. Prepared. His opponent: arrogant , dismissive and unprepared.
By half time Peter was asking for help from the theatre and looking for a bar, hahah.
That was it in a nutshell! Ergo the logical fallacies, most especially ad hominem attacks.
Right on, Stephen, amazing arguments! I liked the part where the chinese paleontologist said: "In my country you can question Darwinism but not the government, whereas in your country you can question the government but not Darwinism"
Creationists have an eternal victim persecution complex. Lol.
Meyer is a pioneer, and his voice is his weapon!
Whenever they (Peter Ward, David Postman) lose/know they're losing in the argument (based on the fact that they have no back up for their argument/theory, Stephen Meyer lays out evidence, proves his side to be right with logic and reasoning, scientific evidence), the strategy they use is turning it to a different issue/going into a totally different topic. I keep seeing this over and over again.
I would start listening to him if he's not a christian.
Oh give me a break! He made no logical arguments and he has a Christian agenda he is trying to push.
Absolutely right. I have watched a few debates, and they are waste of Stephen Meyer, the live audience and the organizers’ time. They don’t have any argument so they resort to throwing sand in Stephen’s eyes.
I don’t 100% agree with Stephen Meyer, but as far as this debate goes he absolutely wiped the floor with this guy. Interesting debate, love watching and learning from this stuff.
@Joey-ry4qt, Amateurs might agree with you. But anyone who knows these arguments know very,very differently.
@@teefkay2 this guy must be the professional, totally not amateurish .. whats your credentials bro?
@@teefkay2amateurs who know enough of biology chemistry and physics will know Stephen is right on! Peter is a moron…..old age is a crappy design guess he doesnt know about entropy in the entire universe.
I'm on Ward's side but think Meyer won the debate. You can win a debate but still be wrong. The question in the debate itself is who presented the better argument. Ward kept strawmanning ID. I think ID can be debunked but should be addressed on its merits, not just hand-waved away as god of the gaps.
It's interesting how Mr Ward becomes so unscientific and uses personal insults to refute intelligent design. I think this is a common phenomenon when debating atheists...
Yes, I have watched a few debates and it common.
As an atheist, you guys deserve to be insulted and mocked for being taken in by religion, how can you be so gullible?
Stephen is humble, can elaborate, explain and honestly make sense. Peter not only act but has assumed that he is correct and he hasn’t got anything to prove - but really enjoyed the debate, kudos to both.
BORAX SOAP!!!! That started life, --Ward
Funny.....I thought the opposite!!!!!!!!!🤣
When a person resorts to mock another instead of reasoning with them, then how would you call this person a scientist. Peter, you can do better and you should do better if you truly think you're a scientist.
It’s sad, not just that Stephen destroyed him, but that he didn’t even realize it.
That part bro 😂 Dude actually thought he was winning..with the comedy act lol
Wow, couldnt believe how owned the evolution defendor was. He never sat and laid out his evidence, he just tried for zingers while not realizing he was being owned with logical arguments.
Stephen is a christian lol
Where was Meyer’s evidence for an intelligent designer or what he really means his god ?
One thing for certain that I drew from this is that I would never want Peter as my professor
Hilarious to listen to this man (Ward) failing on every level. Nothing but strawmen and inability to discuss/debate in good faith. He is outclassed in every respect by Dr. Meyer.
It's a shame only fifty-six thousand people have seen this, Meyer is correct!
Yeah but 56,000 is a he'll of a lot.
Are you under the delusion that everyone watching this thinks Meyer is correct.
Stephen had the best argument against the Steve Martin wannabe.
Steve crushed this guy !! he was more like a wounded comedian. Great job, Stephen I’m a new fan I just heard you in Joe Rogan.
This is exactly what I was thinking. He seemed like a smug comedian who was using insults to try to make his points.
Same here on all counts. New fan due to Rohan, Signature in the Cell was awesome.
Stephen is absolutely BRILLIANT
Agreed. Watch more debates and you will see it happen again and again. Evolutionists don’t have an argument, so they resort to throwing sand in your eyes.
I have to admire the courage of Peter Ward to attempt to win with emotion and insults against Meyer's overwhelming evidence-based argument for intelligent design. Ward loses badly, but he gained the allegiance of a few hecklers.
Which evidence for an intelligent designer ? Who is this intelligent designer, at what point does he have an influence or do anything? There is nothing scientific about intelligent design it can’t be tested , it’s not repeatable or falsifiable.
It’s all begging the question and empty claims .
@@MartTLSMeyer gave evidence in the video.
Meyer is the best. The other guy seemed pretty arrogant.
I like how Stephen does not get riled by Peter at all. Also when anybody says, "the science is settled". Does not want any questions asked of them or what they are purporting.
Stephen is very admirable by how he handles his skeptics. I commend his integrity. The more I watch of Stephen, the more I like him.
I've not seen him 'lose' a discussion, he has an answer for everything, even if he's not right (though he persuades me and I do believe in God, I'm also not an all knowing being, I cannot say what is or isn't the truth, only God can).
Peter Ward is an perfect politician. He is an arrogant and not a likeable person at all. So full of himself, it's sickening.
Regardless of what you believe the pompus attitude from the one side should be a pretty clear indicator of who actually knows what they are talking about.
I like how evolutionists pretend that evolution is valid in full view of the evidence against it and the complexity of life it can't explain.
Ward got outclassed by Stephen in every exchange. My favorite example of this occurs at 35:00-36:52, where Ward smugly interrupts Stephen with a "What?!", as Stephen begins to answer the moral question of the nature of ID, as if Stephen is just spewing word salad when he says that "..the question is parasitic off of a theological assumption", after which Stephen proceeds to just blow Ward out of the water, and Stephen then ends with marvelous lucidity speaking directly to Ward's objection by saying that the fact that we see biological decay and extinction are not effective arguments against ID because ID doesn't appeal to God per se, but merely makes a logical inference to a designer based on our own experience of encoded information and irreducible complexity, which, also in our experience are subject to error and decay.
Irreducible complexity has long been debunked and calling DNA “encoded information” to conclude that there was a conscious designer behind it is a ridiculous and baseless argument. You don’t get to just use a metaphor as your premise to conclude a fallacious argument. Meyer is doing nothing but playing semantics.
It’s like watching two children try to argue with one adult. Stephen is extremely smart, and a class act.
Peter’s argument is dogmatic, not Stephen’s.
Well done Stephen! He done extremely well in explaining his position. The one thing I would add when they said that God wasn't a good designer with people getting old and dying is we are not made for earth, we are made for heaven but first we must pass the earthly test in order to achieve heaven.
Je ne vois pas ce que la vie peut être sinon une épreuve...
What test does one pass to achieve heaven?
"I am really pissed that I am growing old." Good news, the flesh is only one element of our design! We have immortal aspects, but his mind is closed to this.
Great debate Dr.Meyer! You da man!
Heb3.4:" Of course every house is constructed by someone...
Stephen Meyer …What a magnificent mind !
I wonder if Peter Ward knows what the term " This didn't age well" means.
Peter Ward, April 26, 2006: "we will have artificial life, I predict in a decade."
In May 2010, a team of scientists led by J. Craig Venter became the first to create successfully what was described as "synthetic life".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter#Synthetic_Genomics
@@rembrandt972ifyread the paper. Not just the headline. They didn’t’t create life. Just take sequences for a set of DNA and put another in. That like changing a tire on a car and claiming you build the whole car. It’s a scam and a lie. They haven’t made any life in a lab. Even with human involvement.
@@rembrandt972ify He started with a living cell. Then he manipulated it, changed it and said it was a new thing "synthetic life." The idea in "origin of life" is to start with non-living material and create a living cell. Nobody has ever done that, nor has anyone ever come close to it. Take a cell that is dead for 1 second. Try to make it live again. It's impossible, or at least it's never been done.
@@rembrandt972ifyby themselves ONLY . there is nothing life like about that cell did you even read the abstract ??
@@deepcosmiclove If he started with a living cell, alors il a triché ?
Science is about competing ideas as long as it doesn’t lead to God
I love how Peter says you have to agree you’re getting paid……… like he’s not getting paid
Straight out of the gate it is painfully obvious that Peter has not even made time to study the theory that he so adamantly opposes.
Ward’s awful personality and approach to debate would lead me to disagree with virtually anything he argued. And, can he not argue without calling out his sci-buds in the crowd?
As soon as the opposing argument starts insulting there opponent they lost credibility. Which was immediately..how embarrassing
11:43 George Bush? How did this become political? I thought we were discussing serious scientific contemplations about the nature and origins of existence.
Commenting as a theist and committed I.D. believer, it is wonderful to hear a brilliantly-gifted and articulate (also Intelligently Designed) speaker like Dr. Meyer in a spirited debate. It also shows me how hard-boiled, 'don't confuse me with facts,' evolutionary religionist like Peter Ward reveal himself as the "King Who Has No Clothes."
It’s great to hear meyer but I wouldn’t call this a spirited debate. It was very messy & one sided
Science and intelligent design are just parts of a whole. I believe they work in tandem. It's the how and the why. In my opinion✌️
I was actually embarassed by Peter's responses...
"we will have artificial life in a decade" lol here we are almost 20 years later.
Right😂 Now they’re trying to make a big deal out of a few self-replicating strands of RNA, which, shocker, was only put together through the meticulous intelligent design of humans
And the end times will be here in my lifetime, said somebody 2000 years ago.
@@Bayhuntr 2000 years from now, followers of that somebody will still be saying that the world will end in my lifetime.
@@BayhuntrNo they didn't.
Artificial life that was would be created by the application of intelligent will, btw. Lol
Great conversation! You did a great job Stephen Meyer!
That again was not an argument 😂😂
33:02 Agree. DNA at disperate temperatures and pressures would either dissolve or fail to bond and render life as we know it impossible.
What about extremeophiles
@@hindsight2022Extremophiles are made of cells. Cells are complex and haven’t yet been made in the lab from non-life.
@@lisanlovesnope .Cells have dna .So extremophile fna can tolerate high temperature
did u seriously just suggest that since cells have dna, this means that extremophile dna can tolerate high temperature without a cell? you dont see how thats obivously absurd to suggest?@@somdattamaiti8941
At the half of the debate Peter was looking to the back door and asking for beers, clearly feeling destroyed.
I hold to ID position, so take what I am saying with that in mind.
1. What I have noticed in debates/conversations like this is, on anything like a level playing field proponents of ID do Very Well, and those who hold a (for lack of a better term) materialist view do not look good.
2. Since 2006 the evidence for ID has if anything gotten stronger.
3. 5 words I Try to keep in mind on this and other topics. But..I..Could..Be..Wrong.
Funny how science itself was born from a culture that just accepted ID as a given. Darwinianism is really the “new” theory, not ID. Like it or not, if people like Newton and Kepler hadn’t assumed divine order to the universe, science wouldn’t be where it is today. I’m a Christian and I actually think the whole debate is inescapably theological in nature and not something ultimately science can prove or disprove (or even if it matters). If you believe in god you’ll see god in the details, if you don’t, you won’t. But your worldview will invariably frame how you approach science (and life in general) so to me it’s very much worth thinking about. Always in the pursuit of Truth!
what he said about centrioles was very interesting. i hope some further research can be done on this .
So obvious that Stephen is much brighter than his Evolutionistic counterpart. He speaks clearly, advocates his ideas without attacking the person he is debating. The other guy, clearly is out matched in intelligence and resorts to bravado, bullying and attacking. Which makes sense, he is obviously a random mutation by undirected processes that clearly needs a few more billion years to argue intelligently.
Here from Joe Rogan
@Jrslpmx300, that is NOTHING to brag about. That guy is a moron.
Left guy: "...emotional, authoritative, pseudo-logical arguments."
Right guy: "make me a cell from scratch."
Peter couldn't be more arrogant.
Even if you don't agree with Stephen, I'm not sure how you could say that Peter wins this debate. His tactics are childish.
Yes Peter, it’s a theory. And a really strong one.
Intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory .
@@MartTLS Well all theories are inferences of best explanation of evidence/observed phenomenon. By that definition it would be scientific just not naturalistic. Thus the original poster is correct in saying there is a lot of observed evidence where the best explanation would be to posit a designer for observably designed results.
The problem most people have is that if you postulate a supernatural being it becomes impossible to create a testable hypothesis around that idea and people are uncomfortable with the theological or philosophical ramifications of such an idea. Though there are multiple phenomenon that have explanatory power that are not really understood as to what they are or directly testable so I fail to see why you cannot come to a supernatural being as a scientific conclusion.
So Peters's basis for authority is that more people agree with him than don't? Sounds like the church of Englands authority over scripture back in the day. That didnt end well.
Peter: "ID can't be true because I don't like what might happen to students." Haha I can't believe that Stephen didnt point out his many fallacious ways of thinking
I personally can't see why anyone would take Stephen (Mammals first appeared in the Eocene) Meyer seriously.
@@rembrandt972ify
Says the person supporting the guy foaming at the mouth over the suggestion that life does not appear in any scientific metric as accidental and reason and thought are not meaningless.
A complete misrepresentation of Peter Ward's statement. Ward simply stated that science has no way of testing the supernatural, which is true.. And that is why we need to leave the idea, NOT THEORY, of intelligent design to the theologians for discussion. As far as what might happen to students, at one point he asked why spend/waste time teaching the unverifiable when there is so much of science that CAN be tested.
@@andrewjohnson8232 so there is evidence that life appears intentional in some scientific metric?
1:24:50 - how did this prediction go? That would have been back in 2016...
Ward uses materialistic dogma and appeal to authority.
The guy he's debating is a fundamentalist materialist, who's faith is as strong as any theist. He's also not very smart.
He really comes across as someone educated far beyond his ability to reason.
17:15 Furthermore the premise that dinosaurs and humans never coexisted does not disprove intelligent design.
This was very helpful with my 'defending your faith' essay. tysm for being so concise and elaborate!!!
did you know Darwin was raised a christian?
So out of millions of publications on evolution where are the innovations and ideas that random accidental selection causes those who believe in that theory have produced?
On the other hand most of the greatest innovations in history came from the idea of a creator and a deeper and deeper search into how things work.
Eugenics is purely Darwinian.
Saying “god did it” is the opposite of “trying to figure out how things work” science, including evolutionary biology, produces innovations in SPITE OF religion, not because of it.
What planet are you living on, seriously.
🎉How can ward keep saying ID is not a theory? Why is he so afraid?
To be judged by God and to loose his money
A scientific theory is an explanatory explanation of facts. ID is not a scientific theory. It has been exposed as a theistic philosophy, mainly a rehashing of creationism in some way, shape, or form. Dr. Francis Collins, although an evangelical Christian, does not accept ID, because he fells that it puts God "in a box."
Because it’s not . Look up the definition .
@@MartTLSYou're right, it's not a theory it's a fact.
The sheer number of logical fallacies from Peter Ward are mind boggling. What on earth is he afraid of?
Name ten of them as examples.
Peter ward in this debate was more of a comedian , more concerned with entertaining the audience than having an actual debate of science.
28:36 Good point. Extinction hurts ID. Mammoths and Dinosaurs didn't cause cataclysms nor the Cambrian explosion. Hard to argue.
I'm really glad to know that Darwin was wrong.
It has restored my faith in Jesus Christ.
Darwin had me worried.
As a creator how and why would you design anything that doesn't require a need for survival?
Not sure exactly what your question is, but I will also ask a question: why did Mount Saint Helens erupt in 1980, killing millions of trees and destroying entire eco systems? And why, just a few years later, did entirely NEW generations of trees and NEW eco systems emerge? It seems like life is DESIGNED to adapt and continue on, even if it has to alter form.
James Tour would have a problem with going from ribose from borax soap to RNA, citing peptide bonds.
I have to give Mr.Ward that he is a living proof that our ancestors where monkeys.
Two Against One
And he still won
He won to the eyes of average iq people with no debate backgrounds I'm a biosynthetic chemist and I'm agnostic i don't believe in athiesm ideology cause it's only for gullible and low iq poeple. 😂@@Azoria4
42:09 Chronological phallacy. Not knowing less complex organisms existed prior to discovery does not negate the veracity of the claim that said organismy are in fact less complex.
It's embarrassing to watch Mr. Ward make rude, snide remarks and attacks without any debate to refute what Mr. Meyer purports. Mr. Ward makes no compelling comments, only attacks.
Wonder what thoughts the fellow on the left has regarding Mark Armittidges work and his multiple findings of red blood cells and tissue preserved in dinosaur fossils would be.
Ha! That is exactly what I thought of when I heard him mention the dinosaur fossil with a human skull trapped in the mouth.
Beyond the soft tissue issue, there are also a few tribal groups around the world that made artwork of a creature that *looked* like a dinosaur. Now this isn't strong evidence because people see what they want to see in art. However it is something which makes me wonder
@@colinthomson5358has there been a dinosaur fossil with a human skull in it? You gotta be kidding...
30:47 Paul invokes appeal to authority. This is another logical fallacy. The number of papers is irrelevant to what is true.
It's not a question of "intelligent design" because humans design things intelligently. It's a question of a design MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANY HUMAN. Until a human can CREATE A LIVING CELL FROM SCRATCH, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE, then "intelligent design" just means, "we aren't intelligent enough to copy the process."
Peter said they will have made life in a lab within 10 yrs, this video was made 2006
in 2 years its been 20 years. lee cronin made a similar claim just more absurd he said within 5 years.
Ward literally said nothing scientific. He did nothing but complain and talk down to Stephen. He knew he was out of his realm.
intelligent design is exactly equal to creationism and creationism is not a theory Mr Moyer it is not a theory, not a theory. it is dogma.
What Michael Behee says about the irreducible complexity in the flagellum of the cell is actually not irreducible, because part of the flagellum motor is the secretory system and does secretory work in other cells.
Do Peter’s own thoughts on the matter defer to the supernatural? The brain is matter, but consciousness is immaterial. Two seconds after a person dies, the brain remains but consciousness is gone (from this plain anyway).
There is no re-animating of the brain once consciousness has left even though all the component parts are still intact.
OoL( origin of life ) research proponent of evolution can't make a life from non-living things to living things
Which comes first dna or enzymes? It's a chicken and egg scenario for example cells requires ATP synthase, Electron Transort Chain which separates electron from substrate. Each movement inside cell requires ATP which produced by ATP synthase but ATP was generated with many involved a lot of processes from glycolysis and kerb cycle
15:00 Though Peter is acting in bad faith by invoking politics, I must push back, despite full well knowing that irreducible complexity seemingly precludes Darwinian origins, I am obliged to mention that the jury is still out on the big bang.
The Big Bang theory was developed by a Theist named Georges Lemaitre.
He was a priest.
Irreducible complexity of the eye is not what the Christian apologists say.
Science can test supernatural. What about ghost hunters that use instruments to record evps. Also an example psychological experiments on remote sensing, studies on near death experiences etc..
If Meyer doesn't challenge common ancestry (@9:51) as nonsense, then he is a Darwinist at heart.
Wrong.
OK, make me a living cell from scratch. No? That's what I thought.
Peter Ward starting off with personal attacks and strawmen...he sure appears unserious next to Meyer, as though he was surprised at his involvement in this talk. He's clearly unaccustomed to defending the basics of his beliefs. Instead, he employs arguments from credulity, authority, and majority, and finds himself down a dark alley with too much pride to look around and accept he is lost. Either that or he's suffering from Dunning-Kruger, which is even more sad. Bad faith arguments, but he is in the mold of Dawkins.
12:24 I'm old enough to remember when teaching evolution was taboo. Stark reversals in popularity do not make arguments.
At 45:54. Stephen Meyer tries to equate the Rosetta stone to the possible supernatural.
An archeological find like the Rosetta stone, wouldn't be looked at as the supernatural.
So is the information in DNA. It just looks designed because we know it cannot be generated by chance.
Intresting that the guy who bring up dogma, and calls intelligent theory a political weapon doesn't want to actually debate Stephen on the philosophy and the critical thinking of the theory. What a clown, exactly the type of establishment thinking that has broken our scientific paradigm.
He said it leads to intellectual mediocrity while he sits across from a guy who is by far more intelligent than he is.
In his opening statement Peter essentially says I worry about debate. Geesh., that is what third world countries do, not the USA
Not only did Peter switch his hope that it would be political....he was the first to bring politics up. I'm sure this logical flaw goes into his whole life and work. His arguments are riddle with logical fallicies
Cambrian explosion took more than 30 million years...
Peter does such a great job being a living representation of the famous Max Planck quote about advances in science:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Why when Peter asked Stephen to show him the designer so he could understand said designer and then asked Stephen "aren't you curious to know what the creator is" Stephen didn't say the christian god of the bible?
I don't know why Stephen didn't say that, but it seems that Stephen's whole point was that regardless of who the designer is, the evidence of a designer is obvious.
@@joshuacolon285 Everyone knows Meyer is talking about the Bible God, but the 'evidence of the intelligence' is non-existent.
@@rembrandt972ify Where are your two nobel prizes for explaining the origin of life and the fine tuning parameters?
Yes they go up against the moderator also
They will be without excuse . For the glory of God is revealed in the things which He created
"Science cannot test for the supernatural." That statemeht is philosophical NATURALISM. That is a metaphysical presupposition. That presupposition is in direct confl8ct with the scientic method.
Can the claim "science cannot test for the supernatural" be varified using the scientific method?? Nope.
Politically saying, if ID is right, the Designer will be mad for non-ID supporter, so yes, all these talk will always absolutely politic.
Why would an "intelligent" God design a tapeworm? Only to show that His ways are unfathomable?
Yeah if only calling names and pointing to people from the audience, no manners and mockery could win you a debate...
Also that prediction about origin of life did not age well at all
38:15 Wrong. Digital code can be found in crystaline structures, rock formations, ore densities, tributary formations, stellar nuclear elemental syntheses, accretion disk spacing, atmospheric molecular bonding procedures and much much more. These digital constructs are inherent and manifested by naturally occurring physical phenomena which require no intelligence to propogate.
That’s interesting, though the complexity of biological systems far exceed the type of coding you’re referring to. Please correct me if am wrong, but the very fact that these items and systems show an intelligent agent for their high level of accuracy. I do not believe God made the universe but the laws of physics, chemistry, and or geometric synthesis show that those laws had to be there before things came together as an expression of this laws. And in fact we cannot create or make anything without following them. That’s why scientific research is so essential to progress. Also logical thought is not just in the heads of scientist but in all of us.
Design.