@@thermal1580 but Stevens not saying "dont interupt me"....Ward is. You cant say "dont interupt me" and then proceed to interupt someone.....get the point? One is being hypocritical and the other isnt.
TH-cam and social media have brought about a pardigmn shift. A student at school can educate himself on alternative theories through the internet, even though they are forced to study whats just in the textbooks. At the end of the day, these Darwinian scientists are in the minority. If any one of them find themselves in grave physical danger, why dont rely on pure chance to save themselves. Dont try to protect yourself in anyway...leave it up to chance. It would be great if one of them could be dumped in the middle of Ukraine frontlines and let them take their chances.
Keep up the good fight Dr Stephen Meyer. People like yourself, Dr Michael Behe, Dr Wells among many others, are capturing the future of biological science. Love your work............
Professor Denis Noble is another brilliant one, especially with his theory of Biological Relativity... his wiki doesn't even do him justice of what he's given to science.
Dean Philip Saunders ••• Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? I wish Dr Meyer would talk about that .
@@mcmanustony no it’s because each of them are some of the most proven theories to date. And because 98% of biologists and even 70% of Christians accept it as the correct model. Even notable Christians such as John Lennox and even the pope. The evidence supporting evidence is extraordinary and is only getting more and more conclusive. Creationists have Been trying to and failing to pome holes in it for years.
mcmanustony believing everything came from nothing is utter nonsense rather , educated people yet going against their own logic to believe everything came from nothing that’s what you call utter and complete nonsense , you see if there is no life after this then no problem we all will be warm food but if there is life after this than guess where you and these ( priests of science ) will be , let me tell you , nothing but fire house made of fire clothing made a fire food which you won’t be able eat but that will be the only thing available so you will force yourself to eat and all this only cz some educated ignorants said everything came from nothing and you believed them
@@mcmanustony LOL. Where peer review is done precisely by people like Atkins? Shrill cries of "Peer review" and "consensus" are what people say when they don't have actual counter arguments to what Meyer is saying.
Atkins comes off as a condescending, arrogant jerk. At one point, Meyers stumped him and he said he needed to "collect his thoughts." Haha . Meyers is not only intelligent, he gives a great argument for his theory.
@@dopeydonaldtrump3744 I did and as an atheist I was disappointed that Atkins came across as weak and insulting. He should have crushed him with science and logic
Atkins comes across as a hectoring bully. Huge moment of hypocrisy when he berates Meyer for engaging in typical creationist tactics of steamrolling, and then does exactly the same thing to Meyer when it's his turn to talk, interrupting him relentlessly. As a Brit, I apologize for Atkins on behalf of my country.
@@megalibra82 homosexuality is a vile lifestyle by choice of those who are sexually perverted... abnormalities is defects faulted by deficiency, medical errors, etc...wow; ignorance...look up the meaning of words before use
@@michellenurse456 I know the meaning and you are in no position to lecture me lady. You are a scared lonely witch thinks she have a morale highground because you find something repulsive with your instincts. No one care about your feeling dear or how you find such act abnormal its been there since the dawn of time and it will keep up. Dad issues much?
@@megalibra82 name calling? Wow. You are behaving exactly like the names you are addressing everyone here. I am not and don't care to lecture especially you, the way you are conducting yourself speaks volumes...shameful
Mr Atkins is not listening the oponents at all! He is prejudice, closed minded darwinist, not even close to science! He is so arrogant! He is completely missing the point. Mr Meyer, well done! Thank you for your tremendous work!
Sweeeet....... I was wondering if it was worth listening to......but if your comment is anything to go by then Atkins must of been in great form. Not entertaining the fool too much and essentially just ignoring him for entertainment purposes.....nice
Jericho Sharman bruh... there are secular scientists that agree the theory of evolution is retarded... what bias rock have you been under? Just because an argument is old or has been used for years doesn’t make it invalid or any less powerful... Atkins is easily one of the most openly dishonest people do ever step on the stage for ANY debate... he’s trash 🤷🏻♂️
@@dorgonreborn4108 so what if there are secular scientists that believe that.....there are secular scientist that believe in the power of astrology too. Science is beyond the individual.....and the scientific method ensures that. Evolution is shown by the facts of reality and the scientific method for decades.....so Christian arguments are often quite frustrating as they are so childish and weak ......it’s easily tests many of us. Ps....secular Doesnt autmatically imply atheist
It's unbelievable. It seems like every single proponent of evolution is an arrogant prick. Instead of actually discussing the evidence they try to belittle and make jokes about ID to avoid talking about the flaws and holes in their THEORY. You can just tell by this debate that Stephen Meyer is MUCH more intelligent. Every time he makes a point the rebuttal is just "no no no" and the an insult. That's just an absolutely fucking cowardly debate tactic.
Kevin Kuhlman Atkins is an old curmudgeon. He comes from the same hometown as Ebenezer Scrooge. But, criticism is desired as long as it given with good manners.
I agree. He makes a statement and when Stephen try's to answer Atkins starts saying he is being interrupted. Stephen is on point and makes claims that he backs up and Atkins just says "nonsense" and gives no real answer. He has his opportunity to refute and has nothing that Stephen doesn't squash immediately. Atkins keeps introducing strawman and rewording Stephens position. This is why I like these debates. Both sides can provide their best arguments and the naturalist never present anything to refute. They are arrogant, interrupt and make all the points the ID proponent is trying to make. He confirmed they are stacking the deck. This is strong evidence they are in trouble.
The Pharaoh Infinite regress is impossible. Here is an explanation for you. God is....the timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal, intelligent designer of our universe. You are proof He exists. Sorry that isn't enough for you. Life is proof that He exists. The fact that you can reason is proof that He exists. It already has been proven. Something from nothing, material from the immaterial, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from the inanimate. These are the highly "rational" conclusions based on no evidence that your worldview forces you to accept. Your God given freewill allows you to deny the obvious. Psalm 14:1
@@mountaindew7190 That's correct. It was a statement, followed by a sarcastic (not) compliment and two thumbs up in emoji form. How good of you to notice. Bravo!!
Old Peter Atkins did not give any coherent explanation for the source of information in DNA, nor could he rationalise the added information that would have been necessary for increasing complexity. He kept on trying to invoke 'evolution' as if that word by itself was as sufficient explanation for the obvious lack of insight by atheists into the complexity of life. These guys just hate the idea of a God.
Evolution IS the explanation because it is by RANDOM mutations and natural SELECTION.......which means this overall mechanism is NOT RANDOM. So Peter Atkins is correct to "invoke evolution as if that word, by itself was sufficient explanation for the complexity of life". Unless you want him to keep repeating the words "by random mutation and natural selection" all the time...........that could get quite irritating after a point. Science is ONLY about explaining natural world phenomena, it has NOTHING to say God...............this is philosophy. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the last time I noted, this is not an organisation that "hates God". Evolution is an explanation for the natural world phenomenon of life, it has nothing to do with belief systems of religion or atheism. The only hate going on here is the hatred that some people have for science and its job of examining the natural world. The issue of how life came about as it has is NOT one of design vs no design...............it is one of Design? What design? Natural Design with its testable explanation that has come up trumps (apologies to Democrats there lol) vs Intelligent Design and its mechanism.............which is.....................?????????????? waiting, waiting, waiting. One might argue that an intelligence is behind (at some level) the mechanism that is evolution, this is entirely philosophy..............unless you think that "God" is a natural world being, such as a PhD post doc student on Andromeda Galaxy and we are his experiment. (but then who or what is the God that created him?.....turtles)
No need to get hot under the collar. With all this hot air, still no explanation for the information in the DNA- not the DNA itself. Evolutionists cannot seem to draw a distinction between materialism and intelligence. Its only four letters ACGT but its the arrangement, the sequence, the precision, that produces the right proteins which do the right work in the cell. That takes a mind...the mind of GOD.
I will take this one last opportunity to explain the information that is in the DNA. I presume that we share the understanding that the information is in the sequence of the base pairs, as you have written above. This pairing possibly came about by some sort of inexplicable intelligence, no one can ever "prove" that this is not so. This is a philosophical proposal that has no mechanism that can be tested, unless one has in mind a natural creature under a mushroom or on another planet (which would make it an explicable intelligence). The observation that there is a sequence that represents something meaningful is fair enough and if people want to suggest that this has all the hallmarks of an intelligent source then by all means, go for it. But without an actual mechanism that can be tested, then this is an inference and nothing more in the scientific sense. Call it philosophy then so be it, but without a testable mechanism then it is simply not science. Science makes no claims about God, either way, it simply looks for naturalistic mechanisms, that is its job. In the case of evolution, there IS a mechanism that explains how the sequence of base pairs came about, the information if you will. Firstly the base pair randomly mutates and this results in a different protein. If that protein is beneficial to the cellular function or phenotype, thus enabling improved chances of reproduction, then the base pair will have a better chance of being retained for the next generation than a mutation that doesn't yield advantage. This is done at the statistical level, over vast numbers over vast times and is not purely random...it is NATURALLY SELECTED. Regardless of what ever one thinks about the Almighty, THIS is a natural explanation for the sequence of base pairs, so called information, and it is testable. Now, as it happens, the results have come up trumps for this mechanism, so much so that this mere hypothesis has now graduated to the grand status of scientific THEORY. However this was never guaranteed. We have only found this out over the past 150+ years with the CONSILIENCE of evidence that forms the Darwinian synthesis and of course its scrutiny never ends. This consilience involves a mind boggling degree of data points from entirely unrelated fields that have entirely different mechanisms and approaches of testing that continually and relentlessly zero in on the same conclusions while fundamentally never falsifying Darwin's original and, might I suggest, tentative proposal. Tentative because Darwin was a religious man of his time and was greatly disturbed by his findings, but like the proper scientist, he allowed the evidence to take him where ever it must. This was evidence and consilience that Darwin himself could not have ever imagined in his lifetime. If the ID people just professed a philosophical belief in their "inference to an intelligent agency" then one could, in principle, accept this. However, this is not what is being done here. As I wrote above, the non "God hating", Catholic Church has no problem with this. They appear to know what science is, what it does and what it does not, at least in the very broad sense.
@@atticusjones I have a tertiary qualification in the life sciences but, actually, this is not the point, which is really about understanding the philosophical basis of science and how it works. The best thing that Stephen Meyer can do is go head back to philosophy class and prosecute his agenda within the philosophy profession instead of thinking he and his ilk can simply redefine what we now know in the modern world as “science” (as opposed to the more historical and more general usage of this word to mean “all knowledge”) and then barging his way into the science profession. This video here would be an excellent resource. th-cam.com/video/o38eZ__xhO8/w-d-xo.html Here, a REAL philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, gives a nice explanation, by way of his sports analogy, of how we got to what we now know as “modern science” and how it WORKS, which is what makes it such an awesome and indeed successful human enterprise. Essentially being that there is no “provable” reason why modern science need be what it is, it’s just been a matter of tinkering with the rules and then what works becomes the rules of “the game”. It is perfectly reasonable for someone like Stephen Meyer to head on over to the American Baseball Commission (?) and suggest introducing or even replacing some laws of American Baseball with the laws of English Cricket that he may’ve picked up during his sojourn there. But if, by trial and error, the cricket laws turn baseball into an unworkable nonsense in practice, then out go his suggestions. All sports have evolved by such a process of trial and error into a competitive human activity that WORKS, not because someone with an agenda thought they knew the best game of sport within the confines of their own head. It is not reasonable, nor acceptable, for someone like Stephen Meyer to just turn up at the baseball pitch and commence to bowl the ball “over arm style” if this ruins the game and then wonder why his baseball colleagues are trying to get him off the pitch and back to the Baseball Commission with his “cricket ideas”. The reason why mainstream science is based ONLY on discovering NATURAL LAWS is because it WORKS, not because they don’t like God......or cricket....or whatever. If Stephen Meyer thinks he has the “practical methodology” to discover “all knowledge” or the putative “true reality” then may I suggest he stick with the philosophy class and see if his ideas might eventually percolate out into the science class. It’s taken centuries for the philosophy project, going back to the ancient Greeks, yes before the time of Christ, to move from its more general quest for “knowledge” and “true reality” to this specific quest for “what works”. But now we have this ID mob trying to ruin the game of baseball because Stephen Meyer got some big ideas while watching English cricket on TV and thought it reasonable to expect his American mates to just immediately introduce these new rules for the next baseball game at the park without even working it out on the rules committee and then testing its practicality in trial games. And this has nothing to do with muzzling free speech or academic freedom or whatever certain individuals make of the supernatural, but it’s clear that this has a lot to do with the “Religio-Conservative” agenda to prosecute their socio-political world view at all costs. Claiming the undoubted success of the “modern science” enterprise while, at the very same time, potentially turning it into an unworkable mess. Specifically, Stephen Meyer makes a lot of this analogy between “human intelligence” and the putative “supernatural intelligence” and all this stuff about “agency creating the initial and boundary conditions” of “historical science” before we get into the nomological (lawful but not logically necessarily or theoretically explicable) stuff. This all sounds so “sciency”, it almost makes sense in that plausible way that we can expect from people with a culturo-political agenda that is all about rationalising their a priori. The analogy doesn’t work. On this basis Meyer makes references to how the “historical sciences” such as historicity, anthropology, archeology etc work by inferring human agency before, not so deftly, switching to infer to supernatural agency wrt the DNA sequence and his so called “asymmetric order”. He and his ilk make the absurd analogy of the information in the DNA sequence being attributable to a supernatural agency in the same way as real scientists attribute human created IT code. The kind part of me can only think that Stephen Meyer conflates human consciousness itself with our studies of the “natural operations” of the human mind. We really don’t have a handle on human consciousness, the search for a natural explanation is on but, in principle, until we have such a thing, we are stuck with the conjecture that human consciousness is potentially supernatural.......eeeerh “Godlike”. Who knows? It thus appears that Stephen Meyer therefor equates the definitional supernatural agency of God’s intelligence/agency with the WORKINGS of human intelligence/agency. When real scientists examine historical artefacts such as the Rosetta Stone and ascribe them to human agency they do so on the basis of a naturalistic understanding of the way our consciousness has been observed to work, not by presuming to know what human consciousness is. Ie, behavioural patterns and human cognition etc. By definition, God is all powerful and all knowledgable, God is entirely capricious in time and space. In effect, God might be the uncaused explanation for the bold fact of the lawfulness of the universe but God is itself unlawful, God is a law unto itself. BY DEFINITION. Try factoring that DEFINITION of supernatural agency into the so called prosaic workings of God. This ID nonsense is just turning God into a celestial tinkerer, a gigantic humanoid, just as a socio-political agenda would prefer. God is “their man”. The only way this analogy might work is if the intelligent agency behind the DNA sequence was able to be examined naturalistically by the way that its cognition and behaviour manifested itself. A PhD graduate student on Andromeda Galaxy perhaps? Of course the ID people know full well the absurdity of their position and so they simply leave this nonsensical option as open. Yeah right, fooling no one. The analogy doesn’t work. The ID project demeans sincerely held faith, messes up philosophy but, worst of all, it ruins the very reason why “modern science” (if we must call it that) is such an awesome human project, it works. All so that its “agents” can press their socio political world view. That’s a mighty big price for us all to pay should they get any traction. No wonder mainstream Catholicism won’t have a bar of this rubbish! Many of the comments here complain that Peter Atkins merely repeats the retort “Evolution by Natural Selection” as if this makes it so. This is simply an example of why it is a nonsense for a legitimate scientist like Peter Atkins to do these silly debates. In the short space of time allowed, numerously interrupted by the irritating promotions for the books and movies, someone like Peter Atkins simply doesn’t have the time nor opportunity to explain the details of this wonderful project of humanity that has taken dedicated and real scientists about a 150 years and more to realise. And apparently brought crashing down in a screaming heap by Stephen Meyers and his ilk blathering on with their fake “science”. Most of the commentary here appears to go by the logic, “ooooooh, I don’t like this horrible chap Peter Atkins, ergo Evolution must be a nasty atheistic effort to undermine God and so is not true”. Phew. Having written all that, I found the Peter Atkins v Stephen Meyer debate to be simply a promo for a Stephen Meyer book and a nonsensical movie with a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories plus an appalling ambush and misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins. I really don’t know why Peter Atkins bothered and I can’t understand why he was being so nice about it all? I can see why a “philosopher of science” like Michael Ruse might spare the time to challenge people like Stephen Meyer, perhaps we can accept this as “philosophy class”. Call it the “Baseball Rules Committee” where all rule changes are on the table, even the cricket rules, in the interests of open and free speech. Why not? Go for it. But I have no idea why someone like Peter Atkins bothered to engage such rubbish “out on the baseball playing pitch” where a serious human endeavour is being played out? Particularly in a forum that was essentially just a promo for a very bad movie. I think Peter Atkins was just being too nice.
Evolution used to be the last refuge, of the atheist, from God. Now there are theistic evolutionists, that pisses them off even more lol, coz abiogensis is bogus.
mcmanustony To the debate 😂 you obviously didn’t listen to it based on your comment... Atkins is a dishonest and willingly ignorant person especially in regards to the scientists that DISAGREE based on the evidence 😂 the same damn evidence he’s looking at... it’s hilarious... ad Homs and strawmen is what this fossils reality is made out of... literally gets knocked around left and right in ever debate he attends 😂 dunning Kruger at its finest
mcmanustony 😂🤦🏻♂️ you sound so sad that it’s more probable you were designed and there is a purpose/meaning to life... you atheists really crack me up 😂 don’t even get me started on the relativism or lack of foundation for possibility or impossibility... stop eating so much fibre... your shit is weak 🤣
Atkins does a superb job of reinforcing the stereotype of the rigidly closed mind of a typical academic. Even before I was an engineering student over 65 years ago, I always enjoyed examining things and trying to figure out how things were constructed and worked, and never allowed presuppositions to inhibit my inquiry.
You are not intelligent enough to understand Atkins. Your mind was so open that your brains fell off. Intelligent design creationists are so stupid. Their argument is Life is too complex to have a designer but God who is more complicated doesn’t need a designer. So stupid 😂
@@ruaraidh74 Wow what stupid logic 😂. 1. What is the evidence the universe was designed ? If it’s complexity then God is more complex and therefore is in more need of a designer 🤦😂. 2. How do you distinguish whether something is designed or whether it’s undesigned ? 3. It’s your claim God is not designed, for which you or your God doesn’t have any evidence. If life is too complex to have been designed then God is much more complex to have been not designed. Your logic leads to an infinite regress with increasing complexity at every step which means impossible.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube
@@ruaraidh74 I am amazed how you think you refuted my age old arguments no religious man has ever refuted 😂. It’s called Dunning Kruger effect. 1. Complexity or order are the same thing 🤦. I don’t know what you gain by playing these word games. If your brain is having difficulty processing my arguments with the word “complexity”replace it with the word “order”. If the universe is so “ordered” that it needs a designer then your designer which has a consciousness and is much more “ordered” needs a bigger reason for a designer. That’s why your top down assertion fails. You just asserted that there has to be an uncreated designer who designed everything. This statement is just an assertion. What evidence do you have that everything needs an uncreated designer? You also need to demonstrate how & why your designer can lie outside your set of designed things. 2. I think I used simple English words. Yes I am asking you what method you use to label something as designed ? 3. “A designer of everything” is also a logical fallacy 😂🤦. Everything is designed but my designer which falls under everything is not designed, you have asserted and created a special set for your designer 😂. This logical fallacy which you have committed is called “special pleading”.
@@ruaraidh74 Yes these arguments have never been refuted. You not being able to answer my questions proves my point. 1. Ok so you need a cereal box to distinguish between complexity and order.😂😭 Nobody says it’s a complex mess. We say it’s a random mess🤦. Define the words complex and order for me ( use google ). I will keep my questions short and not let you run away. 2.1 What methods do you use to determine if something is designed.( I asked this two times but you ran away ) 2.2 Again it’s your assertion “God ( the most ordered thing ) designed everything “. What evidence do you have? What is asserted without evidence can be thrown away without evidence. 😂 3. Statement 1: Universe is ordered therefore needs a designer. Statement 2: My designer is more ordered than the universe but doesn’t need a designer. For some emotional reason I am asserting God doesn’t need a designer. This is special pleading. You lost bro 😎. If you have little intelligence then you can figure this out.
It's breathtaking that Atkins still debates publicly. He's been so humiliated over and over (such as in this debate) that I'm astonished that his brain allows him to continually get flogged publicly...
@@mcmanustony they aren’t a right wing fundamentalist group, that’s ridiculous. The very fact that most of them are old earth creationists makes them non-fundamentalists. You realize that the science revolution was started by Christians right? Are you saying the group that started the scientific revolution are going to corrupt it?
The hubris of Atkins just amazes me. He offered nothing to the discussion. Just ad-hominem attacks and non-rational explanations with no scientific basis. Stephen sounds like a scientist and offers evidence and well articulated arguments whereas Atkins just screams no no no like some kind of religious fanatic.
Very well said and I completely agree. What he blurted out was nothing but nonsense in a pathetic attempt to put ID back in a box where it refuses to go. He offered nothing other than entertainment (at his expense) to the discussion. Listening to him leaves no doubt that the Theory of Evolution is a cult.
@@SincerityAF hmmm it what sense, because Neo-Darwinism is a modern branch of it, still filled with atheistic lies: relying on “good” mutations for genetic diversity to create a new species, the theory that non living things can create livings, not accounting for the body system changes that need to occur to allow good mutations to occur, the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion still suggest that neo darwinsm is wrong... Atheist need to stop giving Darwin the glizzy and listen to science
@@harrisonparsons9178 100% agree with you there brother. I just meant that scientists who explain how evolution works as "an observation of biological change over time" shouldn't be attacked as a "cult" ... Rather what should be attacked is the Darwinian mechanism that atheists have used to hijack the theory of how evolution occurs. Equivocating one mechanism loved by a cult for the collective paradigms of the theory is problematic, since, after all, our good friend Dr. Meyer is working on the ID model of evolution.
Wasn’t Galileo and others like him non-entities also? I am not comparing Myers work to Galileos but I am comparing their political situations. That’s is the main point here in my opinion. If you take the time to fully understand Meyers argument you would see that he used Darwin’s own scientific methods in formulating his arguments for Intelligent design. Therefore, you cannot say that Meyers work is unscientific without calling Darwin’s work unscientific. People like Atkins aren’t even bothering to read his work. They are just dismissing him right off the bat. That IS NOT SCIENCE.
@@mcmanustony I hear and see a lot of assertion with nothing to back it up but your presuppositions and out right opinion. Meyer has a PhD. and was a tenured professor of History and the Philosophy of science from Cambridge university. Do you know who else was educated at Cambridge? Stephen Hawking. “No Galileo was an intellect of supreme intelligence and Stephen Meyer is not” - bruh Ok. That’s not an argument. You do know that Galileos teachings were ostracized and mocked by people much like yourself right? Like I said in my original statement I am not comparing the twos work. I am comparing their political situation. Not allowing people to speak and share their findings especially if they follow scientific reasoning and standard scientific practices is a dangerous thing to do. People like you suppress speech.
@@mcmanustony Proof of Assertion, presupposition and opinion: 1. Telling me what I see and understand “No you don’t” 2. Telling me what I am and what I believe without knowing or asking me “All I see is a creationist” Please prove your statements....otherwise they are just smear tactics Also, his PhD is in the Philosophy of Science which makes him more than credible when discussing a lot of this issue. One of the issues the philosophy of science concerns itself with is whether or not something can be called science. Meyer constantly defers to research from other scientists who are more knowledgeable than him in his field. That’s standard scientific practice Finally, your statement about Meyer not being a scientist is 100% false. By definition Meyer is a scientist scientist noun [ C ] US /ˈsaɪən.tɪst/ UK /ˈsaɪən.tɪst/ B1 an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences: This is right from the Cambridge dictionary You are correct about my statement about his credentials. I worded the statement wrong. I meant to say that he was a student there.
@@mcmanustony It’s no fetish it’s derived directly from your statements. If you want to seriously argue about something you can’t just go around making claims that you cannot back up. I am not a creationist at all. That is just one claim you made. You hop around on all these forums making outlandish claims for which you have no evidence. That is why you are insignificant and exactly why nobody should listen to what you have to say. In your last statement it seemed like you were part of academia or even a PHD yourself. If you are either one of those you should be ashamed of yourself. If not then I guess it’s typical of a you tube smear tactician.
That's because the major papers will not accept his publications, but will shamelessly publish 'refutations' of ID. The whole world now talks about the flagellum motor mechanism and hundreds of publications exist to 'refute'.
+ vicachcoup. "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious. Strange how the champion of science wants to censor an entire area of research." My thoughts exactly. Stephen Meyer so arrogantly and pompously wants to change science to suit his ideological agenda and so end the research. What an obnoxious git. I totally agree with your sentiments vicachcoup.
+M wow, just what science needs to prove its theories, a Gallup poll. Who needs scientific rigour when we have vox pop? Then I looked up this link www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ and......."Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Evolution is not undirected.......evolution is directed NATURALLY by the interaction between the phenotype and the environment within which it operates (and survives) and the feedback loop this provides to the randomly mutating DNA molecule. This mis information is exactly the reason why people confuse evolution with a random process. The "SELECTION" in natural selection is what directs it and makes it non random. This is not "directed vs non directed"....it is "Directed?, What Directed?". Why naturally directed of course. In addition, the claim here that "ID is a scientific theory..." is simply preposterous. Any high school student who managed to stay awake in science class would know that a scientific theory is a long long long term project to gain broad acceptance within the scientific consensus. Irrespective of what one thinks of this IDEA, a scientific theory it is NOT.......by definition. Having such a statement on the Discovery Institute page simply reveals that these shameful people need to go straight back to high school science class and start all over again. Then......."ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause." Making inferences from observations is just the starting point in developing a hypothesis, anyone can do that. The serious step in developing a hypothesis is to propose a testable mechanism and then deduce predictions and see if these are corroborated or falsified. Claims that these "natural objects bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause" is simply an argument by analogy that conflates the "natural world" with the "human design world". Analogies make interesting communication (indeed, rhetorical) tools and may help to win debates when delivered in front of a naïve audience, but explanatory mechanisms and evidence they are NOT. The mechanism by which evolution explains the natural world phenomenon of life is "random mutation and natural selection". The mechanism by which ID explains the natural world phenomenon of life is.............????? waiting waiting waiting
Peter Atkins interrupts Meyer speaking about the 4 chemical structures that are along the spine of the double helix of DNA, which acts as a sort of alphabet, and the fact that the origin of this structure has not be resolved, a point which Dawkins had admitted in the end of his book, "Expel"...which was a point Meyer was arguing against a point by Atkins, about structures just "popping up". Atkins had finished his point, and smugly stated, "do you want me to go on". Meyer answers, but Atkins constantly interrupts and speaks over Meyers point, getting progressively louder, so as to drown out his point, saying, "well we all know that, that, that, that is 'old hat' "...Then goes on to scold his opponent, and says: "don't use the typical tactic of intelligent design/creationism by being a 'steamroller' , overriding serious argument. I'm prepared to engage with you, IF you will engage with serious argument with me. But, I WANT SPACE TO DEVELOP MY ARGUMENT. I don't want you to interrupt me, everytime I get closer to the truth...tha...tha...ah that you enjoy..." Demanding what he is not prepared to give! So much more could happen in this world, if we would respect those we do not agree with, and LISTEN kindly. We all learn best in an environment of respect. Sad that Atkins wasn't intelligent enough to see that point.
charliesgrl2 honesty, truth and respect for others are not high on his priority list. Money and building a reputation among the atheist, agnostic and bible critics-community is (which translates to money again, also a different type of reputation among the opposite side of the debate which also can be turned into more money and attention). Religious debaters and lecturers do it too but less obvious (they also try to justify the high cost for their material as a service to God, the money is going to be re-invested, you see, in their project, well... minus their high standard living costs of course, fancy venues and catering, etc. Operating costs. I saw John Lennox and a whole bunch of others do a series of their lectures on a luxury cruise and those prices to go to those lectures... they were insane! Only for the rich and excentric who are bored and want to feel all smart and sophisticated just like the Dawkins' and Hitchens' flocks I guess). Here's what I found: Join Discovery Institute for an Alaskan Cruise, July 26 to August 2, and Meet the Stars of the Intelligent Design Movement! Evolution News & Views October 30, 2013 ...Featured speakers will include Dr. Stephen C. Meyer,... Dr. John Lennox. Space is extremely limited. Reserve your room now to get the best selection and pricing! [then checking the pricing:] Interior Stateroom ($1,199 - $1,219) Ocean View ($1,349 - $1,449) Verandah ($1,999 - $2,089) Signature Suite ($2,299 - $2,449) Neptune Suite ($3,249 - $3,749) [ka-ching, I'm sure those debaters get some kind of bonus for holding their lectures there and drawing extra customers for that cruise during that period, not to mention perhaps not having to pay for a room themselves and all the luxuries they're enjoying]
Uenbg I would point out that those are fairly standard fees for a ticket on a cruise ship. Being that this is the case, then the price for the seminar itself was...what?
Hearing the debate Peter Atkins ask like a lawyer in a court “Yes” or “No” which he knows in science you need to be flexible to change and bend and arrive to a conclusive end to a point. Dr. Atkins is defending a status quo of atheist’s evolution and they don't admit they lost the debate and it’s time to admit. Probably Dr. Atkins has been teaching evolution for 3 decades and wasn’t challenged in class by any student yet. Someone said "don't get angry" lol
And that's saying something. Not seconds after stipulating that Meyer not interrupt, he is yapping like a Chihuahua every few seconds during Meyer's response.
I am on Atkins side and still felt sorry for him. Sorry. Actually, sorry. Granted, Atkins is nothing but a tiny part of our side. A sorry part, but tiny nonetheless.
@@morganp7238You remind me of this verse in the Bible, Mark 5:9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." lol It doesn't help that you are many, man. What matters is that you are all wrong.
Try looking at the debate between Meyer, Lawrence Krauss and some evolutionary creationist from March 2016. Krauss was a MASSIVE douche. All of these atheist scientists use mocking and disdain as a rhetorical device when arguing against ID scientists.
***** I would not go that far lol. He is deluded and very miss guided and in need of serious help but so far up his own butt that he will prob never get it unless there is a miracle. I would say that lol
***** I will tell you something you prob already know but never realized really much. Atheist tend to be grumpy control freaks, Christians tend to be cheerful truth seeking folks. Anytime I come across an atheist i know it right away because of their attitude. There is a connection between grumpy butt hurt and atheism that is un deniable.
***** hahaha yea i agree. They claim ditching God makes you free, but then complain all day about God. Then they get grumpy and take it out on people and indoctrinate them at the schools to think as they do. This happens in every atheist country.
Joshua Hults You have probably misinterpreted his statement. He actually says that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero: positive being matter and negative being gravity. This is what happens when scientifically illiterate people try to interpret things that are beyond their knowledge and do not even try to research a bit before spewing out nonsense
Chic01taliano His view is that there does not need to be a beginning to the universe because nothing exist. Watch his debate some years back with Craig. He really says it, and the audience laughs. If you believe that is dumb than you ought not support such a person, especially someone who gets camera time.
@Terncote I am as much disgusted as you, since there seems to be a lot of effort put into the destruction of public education. church and aristocrats liked School to indoctrinate People to be docile morons, but the mere discoveries science made sweeps the base for Elitist thinking away. so instead of true scientific Research, they have People like Meyer mixing their personla opinions with Facts as if both Things are mutually interchangable. And they raise suspision without providing reason for it move on to the nex Point quickly to cast this fake auro of being well acquaintend with science. I just drop one Name LENSKI EXPERIMENT. Watch Evolution LIVE there!
@Terncote unlikely since the new Testament is already a compilation of contradicting stories….calling it one book authored by the spirit of god, is a futile, desperate attempt to paint it is from a single source.
@Chris Manzi I would laugh if there would be something ambivalent here. Science is not about faith. Scientists drop a belief once evidence disproves it. Christians do not. They even celebrate gullibility as a virtue. One of many chrismatic men faked his death two thousand years ago to escape the wrath of the authorities and people believe he died, never checked the alternatives, and belief to be the descendants of Adam, the clay and soil golem. Yeah, and since when atheist and what ever a "Darwinist" is according to you are the same. You do not need to be a scientist to be an atheist or the other way round. The first guy who discovered the cosmic expansion George Lemaitre was a Jesuit priest. The American Hubble was only the second guy, by the way.
mcmanustony Are you you contented with Atkins questioning like. Do you believe in evolution? Of course evolution is happening and I don't need you nor Atkins to convince me that it is happening right now, but that is not the of type evolution in issue.You delude yourself by eating every words materialist feeds you.
There is only one scientist in this discussion and his name is Steven Meyer. Atkins is confrontational and is clearly just hanging on to his old archaic views and satisfying a system that is built on old knowledge. He lost this debate for me.
@Mike Bready It isn't an appeal to authority. It's examining his credentials in the field. The whole point is determining if he actually has the training to know what he's talking about. As it turns out, he doesn't.
@Language and Programming Channel A PhD in philosophy of science is not the same as a PhD in an actual field of science. He studies the works of others, but doesn't have a field of expertise in science itself. Furthermore, he has shown time and again that he doesn't understand some of the details of the science he talks about.
The only intellectual laziness is exhibited by Atkins - who persists in name calling, after saying let's avoid name calling. He's making Meyer's case for the closed mindedness of materialist science.
+Sue Lani Madsen Atkins is correct when he says they are intellectually lazy because the ID community has failed to carry out the task of identifying the Agent, even internally amongst the ID community. Shouldn't they attempt to determine what the Agent is, its attributes and characteristics and then go about the business of identifying that Agent with some sort of methodology?
Identifying the Agent is a separate undertaking, unnecessary to the study of the cellular processes. Studying ocean tidal basins does not require concurrent study by the same team of solar mechanics and gravitational forces to understand clams.
Sue Lani Madsen Identification of the "Agent" is the point, and what his comment is based upon. ID just stops dead at ... There is an intelligent agent, full stop. The next step is to identify the agent which is more than logical. I understand that it may be separate to proving that and intelligent agent is required, but what is it, a hypothesis would be more scientific wouldn't it?
@118250630680132112099 YES, ID IS intellectual lazyness. Because ID is no more than just a blank page where they wrote "god did it". That is the whole "theory". That is it. There are no expermients, no aplications, no details, no predictions. no description of processes, NOTHING. Is just nonsense. It doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory. Not to mention that they dont even have a mechanism or any kind of experimentation developed to differentiate a naturally desgined organism from a "intelligently" designed organism. And even worse, they dont even have a definition of what this "agent" is, does, WHO MADE HIM, and so on. ID is EMPTY. And ID is also a self refunting. Because if this "agent" doesnt need a designer, then why do we? To say that "agent A" (god) didnt need a designer, but agent B" (humans) did, is a completely arbitrary, unjusified and fallacious stupid argument. It is a text book example of a special pleading fallacy. And im not even mentioning the fact that they are DISHONEST. They call it "agent" but they are actually referring to their particular god. Which they cannot mention anymore since they lost a trial in 2005 for being fraudulent and for trying to make pseudo science pass as science.
+Aguijon1982 L..O...L Seriously, seriously...you sound so ignorant. You have NO CLUE what ID is about. Your arguments are what makes ID more convincing, because when people like yourself want to engage in debate over ID, and have never bothered to even understand it, it puts your extreme bias and presupposition on public display. ID theorists make predictions. ID theorists do lab work using ID theories to guide their research. ID questions the philosophical underpinnings of modern science, and advances their theory with philosophical, metaphysical, mathematical, and evidence based discoveries. ID uses a design inference type filter to detect agency, just as other branches of science already do! ID makes no claims to identifying the designer! Learn about what you are ridiculing, it will keep you from embarrassing yourself. ;)
How is being an atheist intellectually lazy? Some would say that the theists are more lazy; you just accept everything a book or religious leader says without question. What was it that changed your mind?
@@DJRickard2010 ok people who are into deism do they get it from a book also Christina’s dust and athist do they get it from a book lol you think theism is just religion
When you are loosing an argument, you raise your voice, you use fallacy arguments, you yell, and you wave your arms and hands around alot like the Robot in Lost in Space. Steve had 'em rolled and baked. Good job Steve. Our schooling taught us well about critical thinking. I remember fondly the Symbolic Logic class with Forest Baird.
@@mcmanustony Except one thing.... You see.... I've known him personally, since 1976. He escorted me around campus as a visiting HS senior and then took physics classes together for the next three years. I played baseball with him, and had three years worth of friendship discussing things, like the amazing thoughtful order of Nature, with our Physics and Geology professors. So, yeah, ....no!....you don't get to climb the moral high ground mound of Intellectual Thought by calling folks names like "lying charlatan". That sir, is more Robot Arm Waving, as I described above. It is what it is. God made us, and that is a Good thing. Cheers!
It's amazing to me that one PhD thinks his views are so much better than another without the slightest scientific argument in play from the Brit. I fought a similar battle during my PhD in Psychology...I was highly discouraged (at times forbidden and once threatened with expulsion), from asking questions that might challenge the very core assumptions or assertions of my very philosophically based profession. Since so many Psychological assertions are not scientifically derived but rather taken to be "in principally true" without question, many of my professor's intransigence seemed anti-scientific to me. Happily, my chairman was very supportive and provided mentorship and air cover until I successfully defended my Dissertation. I'm still challenging the most basic materialist assumptions for the same reason Dr. Meyer does...Stephen, you have my most enthusiastic support.
It’s unfortunate you had to go through that. Science is supposed to encourage dissent and skepticism snd scrutiny. Perhaps the “principles” didnt hold up very well and your arguments were seen as an attack with those thriving in the bubble
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that 1) it does not explain the origin of life at all 2) There are no models that can show that random mutations can lead to speciation 2) the assumption that because natural selection can lead to small changes within a species that these small changes will lead to a new species. 3) the lack of researchers ability to genetically modify one species into another. Natural selection a the driving mechanism for evolution does not come close to explaining the diversity of life without a tremendous amount of assuming.
This is one of my favorite of Stephen Meyer. I liked the way it started with Parody of Bad to the bone song and cracked me up of the kid in school. I really like how Stephen Meyer communicates ID. Would like to see more like this with the humor, because the subjects are touchy. So it is nice to be able to have light "moment" of laughter.
Lynda LAVERNE to find out more, google the Northern Cross by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube! Google Night Signs by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube! Google Jeff Benner, the North Star, and read his comments. Psalms 75: 6-7, says exaltation comes from the north!
Thanks for bringing the subject in public, and to make the voice of intelligence design heard. Atheist ignorance need to learn to behave. God bless you.
Mr Atkins doesn't want interrupted however he may interrupt whenever he wishes..pffft. Mr Atkins is so warped in his Darwinian faith that he refuses to accept reason. I honestly believe Darwinism is one of the largest religions on the planet and it would simply make them look a lot better in these debates if they would admit it.
How are you defining religion?, the dictionary defines it as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods" it's not that sort of religion. If you just mean "they are really interested in it" like shopping is a religion or sport is a religion then ok but so what? The theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life given the available evidence, that is the view of the vast majority of experts and that;s why it is taught. If scientists can disprove it then well done it will become accepted, nobel prizes will be awarded and we will teach the new better theory. However, intelligent design has not done that as demonstrated in the Dover trial and in the scientific peer reviewed literature.
Femi Babalola If he had ruled for creationism you wouldn't accept me saying that he was "half literate". You're butthurt I get that, the truth hurts and the truth is biological evolution is the best explanation given the available evidence and so it will continue to be taught as it works.
Adi Adrian You could be correct depending on how you define "atheist". But it takes quite a lot of faith to believe the bible was written by the creator of the universe. I'm not religious is that atheist who cares? I just cannot believe the unbelievable, I've read the bible and the books and watched debates and I just think the bible (and quran i've studied islam too) is a book written by ignorant men. Can't say much about other religions but it's clear that humans like to tell stories and that's what religions are..
well I listened to my first debate with an inarticulate brit; Dr. Atkins. He had amazingly devastating comebacks like, "that is nonsense", and "evolution did it. Evolution did it. I already said evolution did it". What, is evolution magic now? Atkins just inserts it into any gaps of knowledge without even explaining what aspect of evolutionary theory cover the gaps. Evolution is a magic word. It opens doors to research facilities automatically, and closes them automatically if you doubt it's magic power.
Do you recognize Atkin's voice? He sang in Pink Floyd's The Wall: "You can't have your pudding if you don't eat the meat!!! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat??!!"
... After chastising Meyer for constantly interupting (which he didn't do) Meyer gave him all the time he needed to present his idea. When Meyer then was responding and developing his ideas Atkins interupted repeatedly. I would love to hear a good debate, but I'm out of here at 14:28. Peter Atkins work on your people skills and maybe I can listen to you in the future.
Not all the way through, but Dr Atkins really comes off poorly as an elitist without an argument. Even I can see a difference between order, like lines on a beach, and information, like when the lines on the beach form words.
harry trasmonte totally agree i was waiting to hear one of the foremost minds of science come up with a shred of "all this evidence" he keeps referring to, but all he manages to blurt out at two phrases "don't interrupt me.." and ".. But evolution?!?!"
LazlosPlane I think you have it backwards. This was a 2v1 in which Atkins was constantly interrupted by the other two guests. Meyer tried to monologue and steamroll over Atkins, but when Atkins interrupts to get a word in, he's a bully?
@@colinc892 I didn't see it that way. I saw Peter attempt to force an answer that he was ready to pounce on and when the answer wasn't what he was expecting he kept interrupting. Much like an attorney who is paid to make the audience believe his point of view by trying to drive and define the other point of view. Stephen is saying that the 'science is not settled', so why shut out something that cannot be proven or disproven. Stephen is an intelligent thinking gentleman. Peter is just an intelligent peter.
@@fredresz7773 "I saw Peter attempt to force an answer that he was ready to pounce on and when the answer wasn't what he was expecting he kept interrupting" Could you explain this a little better for me. What answer are you referring to? " Much like an attorney who is paid to make the audience believe his point of view by trying to drive and define the other point of view. " The same could be said for Stephen and Mark, both of whom got more time to speak than Atkins. " Stephen is saying that the 'science is not settled', so why shut out something that cannot be proven or disproven." Stephen is claiming that genetic information can only come from a mind, which is an unsubstantiated claim. He also points to gaps in the fossil record and claims they are insurmountable obstacles for evolution, which they are not. Now Atkins did a piss poor job of responding to these claims. This talk degenerated into basically Atkins saying "nuh, uh," and Stephen saying "yea, huh." Neither offered any real support for their points. I have to agree with you that Stephen was better tempered, but I do think that he interrupted Atkins quite a bit. If you'd like to understand why Atkins is probably more cantankerous, picture the following scenario. Picture a group of astronomers who regular debate the physics of how the earth revolves around the sun and maintains its orbit. The vast majority agree however that the laws of physics guide the orbit of the earth, except for a very small minority of astronomers who claim the world is held up on the back of a massive turtle. Now many of these astronomers have private religious beliefs that involve a world turtle of some sort, so they accuse the majority of astronomers who do not share in that belief of being biased against that possibility. They argue that the science isn't settled, and there is censorship when they are not taken seriously. Some even imply there is a conspiracy on the part of the "naturalists" who turn to the laws of physics and a priori discount the possibility of a world turtle because they fear the implications. Meanwhile, scientists from the majority group sometimes get irritated that this smaller group typically only try to poke holes in gravity and other physics rather than provide any positive evidence of the world turtle. The above might sound crazy, but even if you do not agree with it, that is exactly how scientists like atkins feel from their perspective. If you were one of the majority astronomers, you would get irritable when the world turtle astronomers then turn to calling it an "agent" that holds up the earth, and misquote leading "naturalist" astronomers and make unsubstantiated claims.
For anyone wanting to know the truth about the origin of life, watch youtube video Dr James Tour: the origin of life has not been explained. It is factual and honest. Dr Tour has offered to challenge anyone on the topic and no takers. He is highly rated chemist possibly the best in his field. He was SCIENTIST of the year a few years ago. Written 112 reviewed paper and a leader in nano technology.
I am proud to say I am following Sir Stephen Meyer for quite few years now and my understanding is he has developed most convincing arguments in favour of ID and God's existence in recent times, keep doing the great work sir!! the movie they are talking about here is really worth watching!!
54:40 shows how bias the host is against Meyer. I appreciate Meyer's willingness to take on hostile debates in environments like this one time and time again.
The documentary 'Expelled' should be compulsory viewing in all public schools. Kids should be aware of the corruption and bias in the scientific club/community and shouldn't suppress info regarding the financial motivation and mindset that perpetuates this corruption.
Thanks for airing this video. People need to think about this issue of silencing folks who disagree with "mainstream" views in science, politics, and the medical field. Where there is no room for disagreement, the search for truth is squeezed out of view.
I think you make a good point. Intellectual laziness is not a charge that fits Stephen Meyer, only used to insult him. Prof. Atkins tried to be majesterial in his assertions, but he made no convincing counter-argument, he didn't enhance his reputation as a scientist by arguing against freedom of scientific enquiry, for science he didn't like.
I know I make a lot of comments but I am a mathematician. I totally believed in evolution for decades until I took a course in logic and debating. A professor that taughtme how to make logical arguments in debates proved to me that there had to be some kind of mind behind things in the beginning. Now that mind may not exist now as there is no reason that it has to, but if the universe had a beginning and there was a time when no matter or energy existed then some thinking force, that existed outside of the time and space we exist in, had to bring it into existence. The only way evolution works is if matter and energy are eternal and this universe has always been here. Out of nothing nothing comes.
@@DJRickard2010 if you have EVIDENCE OF Darwinian EVOLUTION will you EXPLAIN please as there is no know mechanism as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You will earn a Noble prize when you explain how it works as you are the only person who knows the mechanism. Well done. I wait with bated breath for you information.
The thing that frustrated me about this whole discussion is that every time Steven Meyer stated that only intelligence can account for complexity and specificity in information, Atkins would respond and say "No it isn't, no it isn't" Why didn't Meyers just ask him to give an example of that type of information arising spontaneously? Atkins would not have been able to answer the question and the folly of his position would have been made evident.
51:12 Stephen asks: Why is it not also intellectually lazy to just assume that some materialistic process is responsible [for evolution], whatever the evidence? Peter's answer: [crickets chirping]... because... um... let me collect my thoughts on that. Peter then goes on to attempt massive damage control lol
I'll give you the answer. Materialistic answer is the only answer that can be tested. While non-materialistic answers cannot be tested. The latter can be made up easily by lazy people. While the former has to be tested by multiple people.
Gavin Hurlimann actually evolution is the only thing that can be tested by genetics, anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography etc. ID can only be asserted. You can only say the “designer did it” and ignore all the evidence with the phrase “the designer did it that way”. I’m challenging you to give me the evidence or defend against the evidence without using or implying those two phrases.
...lol...Peter Atkins, in the first ten minutes, insults ID, calling it science in a cheap tuxedo, then a few seconds later, says he doesn't want this to be about insults...lol....what a jerk
The evidence for intelligent design is present. The other side is hypothetical speculation/hypothesis. Evidence ---> design --->-designer ---> Creator. So simple. A child can understand it.
SuperVt100 "A child can understand it." And that is why is so compelling. Because your answer comes from laying down and accepting the premise while out there there are people working teir asses off in order to understand how the world works
Chic01taliano hey man you really dramatize it. It's like you have a show _Dramatic Science_. There's no romance in working oneself to death. I know, I almost did. Einstein figured out the equation between energy and matter. The equation was e=mc2. Pretty simple. Meyer is correct in that there is a intelligent designer behind life on Earth. All of life was created. There is a Creator. Just because he has a name should not surprise you. His name is Yeshua. This is translated in the Greek and transliterated into English as Jesus. He is known as the Christ which means Messiah. So in English, he is called Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. In the original Hebrew his name is Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus the Messiah or Jesus the Christ). That is the name of God, the son of God. It should not surprise you, there is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. it is God the Son, Jesus, who appeared as a baby in a manger. Grew up to be a man.
Chic01taliano after Jesus grew up to be a man, he ministered doing many miracles. He gave proof of who he was, and he taught about the kingdom of God. . Then he died for the sins of the world, ripping in two the veil between God and men. So anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. He gives eternal life to all who call on his name. Simple.
Atkins is incredibly smug and arrogant, condescending and clearly out of his depth when it comes to this subject. Previously he faced passionate ministers and religionists, now a real scientist who makes valid sound arguments which he sadly treats in a manner a spoilt emperor opposed to a true intellectual would.
Whenever I listen to these Brit's on evolution I get the creepy feeling they are all brothers from different mothers They sound so much alike it's uncanny and sound like deep seeded programming. They are such condescending fools.
@@UnCustomMary_Luke10 Nobody needs to BELIEVE in evolution. They just need to accept it because it’s an evidence based fact, just like the fact that the Earth is a sphere. Tell me , are you a flat Earther, because that is the scientific equivalent of being a creationist.
Materialists, like Atkins, have redefined science in their own image. Namely, a thought or hypothesis can not be considered science outside of the naturalistic view - a creator MUST be excluded. Well, what if the creator is the cause regardless of your personal comfort level with that possible fact.
@@frankslade33 Liverty University. Sweep the floor at Boeing. ID has no evidence. Even in biblebelt judges has told SM, that he has an empty sack. Grow up. All religions are incarnations of primitive superstition. Albert Einstein (1954)
Atkins, and the art of weaponized hypocrisy. He begins by doubling down on the name calling the. Saying he isn't interested in name calling. These pretentious clowns....
Atkins' method is based upon cheap rethoric and cheap points underestimating the public trying to win on cheap arguments. We shall stand up against those kind of arguments and always follow the facts no matter who present them and where it may lead us. Atheist like Dawkns and Atkins are very close in its argumentation to religious fanatics, and are not open to new facts, theories and knowledge. Do not let an academic title rule the discussion and its results, based upon that many of the high degrees at the best academic institutions are based upon "cock sucking" - pardon my french, by I got an LL.B, an LL.M and a Juris Doctor from a three different top tier Universities, so I know the rules.
I actually wish Atkins had been given more time to speak. Calling him a bully after he got steamrolled so much isn't really fair. I enjoy listening to Atkins because it reminds me how empty and invalid atheism is.
It is most interesting that every evolutionary scientist Stephen Meyer debates, says that there is an obvious bias in Intelligent Design. During the debate, they always seem to reveal their own obvious biases concerning Darwinian evolution. They say that Intelligent Design is full of assumptions, while revealing their own assumptions concerning the Darwinian evolutionary model. Fascinating indeed!
Aaron Collins ...And resorting to ad hominem attacks points out Peter Atkins' "intellectual laziness." Frankly, I didn't hear any concrete examples of how macro evolution is "proven," only the assertion that it must be, and so it is.
***** I can't express how much joy I am experiencing in knowing that you are doing well, as well as increasing your knowledge in God's creation. Stephen Meyer is a scientist of great knowledge, as well as an outstanding man of God. Are their any christian scientists that you can recommend? AlmightyDeity an I are still going at it. With the knowledge I am gaining day by day, I'm sure he knows that he is fighting a losing battle. I will send you a list of people to look up on TH-cam. I hope that you will do the same. God bless!!!
Let Us Gather... how macro evolution is "proven," only the assertion that it must be, and so it is. Yes I noticed Peter did that as well & its rather circular and self refuting, i.e. evolution caused the appearance of information in DNA because evolution is true!!!
Chic01taliano LOL..... antibiotics and flu vaccines are sound science, verifiable through the scientific method. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Flu vaccines are certain dead bacteria given via injections so that the body can naturally build immunity to those certain injected bacteria. Evolution has nothing to do with this process. Evolution does have a problem with answering the age old question of how any complex organism could have survived without an immune system being in place to protect it in the first place. HIV is a perfect example. The virus does not kill anyone; all it does is leave it's host defenseless against all of the other infections common to all lifeforms.
I understand you, I like listening to the man talk even when I don't understand what he's talking about. He's just so well-spoken, stays on topic, and always has a good answer or a rebuttal.
Atkins starts out saying he prefers to get into name calling, then spends the entire debate spewing ad hominums and producing straw men.He also retorts "dont distort my position" after doing nothing but that to Meyer the whole debate. Why anyone debates Atkins anymore is a mystery. Atkins sounds like most creationists.
Such people always project what they do onto others so it's no surprise. In fact that is one of the traits of evil people; they project what they do onto others then condemn the other.
Brandon Ward Denying the scientific facts is a type of child abuse. Its really sad that people who have never even studied the science, have no problem denying it. Funny how you whine and complain about people not reading Meyer, when you yourself haven't ever read a Biology textbook.
odinata "Denying the scientific facts is a type of child abuse." It's been up here since August last year and I didn't notice. Shame on me. But let's analyze this a bit. It's child abuse to deny science facts. Which science facts? If we deny that there's gravity, is that child abuse? How so? OK, so I can see how a denial of the existence of gravity could be child abuse if we are parents, but what if we have no contact with children? Then what? But that's an easy one. How about if we deny say, string theory? A lot of scientists believe that string theory is factual, while others do not. So those who reject string theory are child abusers, and those who don't are not? This is so, because science doesn't so much deal in facts, but in hypotheses and theory, and they can change as new data is generated or discovered. Today, all biologists accept that "evolution" is fact. However, if you define evolution more specifically as "Darwinian" evolution; random mutation acting on natural selection, there are scientists who now believe that it is less "natural selection," and more "genetic drift." You have two varying views, who both believe that these are facts. You have other evolution theories as well. Who are the child abusers among them? What specific science facts, for example, has Stephen Meyer denied, which would make him a child abuser? It's a pretty preposterous assertion, then, isn't it?
vicachcoup I think you nailed it. These are people who will attempt to force science, particularly biology, to remain stagnant for the next 150 years. But of course, they won't be successful, because there's such a thing in biology as "death."
Brandon Ward Now listen, if you're going to actually force him/her to specifically define what it is that they mean by their generalized statement, then they're just not going to play. After all, that's what pop-author, alleged research scientist and self-appointed Pope of the "New Atheist" movement Richard Dawkins has taught them to do!
Good debate. Im glad Stephen posted this & he usually shares competing views with his audience which i think is a great thing. We need to remember that Stephen's work & the ID field in general is an ongoing process of discovery & knowledge. We must debate & test theories to their absolute limit because this tells us what we are lacking & need to work on etc. From my own experience & observation i have noted many of Stephen's followers accepting the theory almost on blind faith e.g. they saw a lecture & it changed their life, "t just makes sense" etc - be very careful of this because you dont know what you dont know & thus its easy to agree with anything. Its like somebody being ignorant to science & persuaded by flat earth videos - it makes perfect sense to them because they lack a certain understanding. I am a fan of Stephen's work & it has made me re-evaluate many of my previous assumptions, but that doesnt mean we should immediately stop listening to the counter arguments. Thtas the world of academia & people will test your theory to its breaking point - thats normal & thats why i say Stephen publishing debates is extremely useful & transparent
Intelligent design does not close the door on further exploration, that is like saying because you know a rocket has been designed there is nothing more to be learned about rocket science ? faulty logic and reasoning by Peter Atkins.
+John Smith It appears that Meyers and Behe have both found evidence for the identity of the intelligent Agent. Well how did they do that and did they use the same methodology to determine the identity of the Agent? If you have more data on "Discovering the Intelligent Agent", I would like to know what that is?
How can Peter Atkins keep claiming "absolute nonsense" whenever Stephen Meyer states that information is indicative of ID? Surely this hypothesis is in fact the entire foundation that holds the various SETI programs in place, isn't it? The search for structured information coming from space will prove that we are not alone and there is another intelligent life form out there somewhere trying to communicate. Does Peter Antkins deride this area of scientific research and discovery as well?
Intelligent design is a supposition based on intellectual laziness and a closed mind resistant to scientific methods. However i am humble enough to have an open mind to consider mulitiple completing hypotheses that verifies my materialist view is the only correct view
Still haven't been able to listen to the whole video of this yet as Peter Atkins rude obnoxious attitude just makes me want to muzzle the guy. Peter talks about child abuse yet is happy to hurl abusive insult after abusive insult failing to realize that if he were to do the same to any child he was raising he would also in contempt of child abuse himself. I often wonder if someone like Peter is a theist in disguise as he really does make atheists look very embarrasing by his mere attitude alone.
The arrogance of Atkins is astounding! You can hear him snear at Dr. Meyer. The scientific reality of Intelligent Design will come out when snobs like this have finally gone!
@@mcmanustony you are disgusting. Issac Newton said himself "Atheism Is so senseless". Atkin is a closed minded quack. Meyer is an advocate for open minded science. A great scientist.
@@psynergy007 Isaac Newton died 500 years ago. Back then everyone was religious. Newton also believed in alchemy. If he was alive today Newton would almost certainly be an atheist.
I'm not at all bothered by the "debate" because the truth will bubble to the surface. When the debate is over, we will know the truth. Meanwhile, enjoy !
Atkins: “DNA has grown through evolution.” Meyer: “That’s pure assertion.” Atkins: “ wHaT d’you MeAn iTs pure AsSertion? 🤬” 🤡 He starts his argument by stating “It happened my way. Believe it” 🤦🏻♂️
Damn, if the hypothesis that Meyer is putting forward was so “intellectually lazy”, I’d love to see what how many more “interesting questions” a rigorous non-Darwinian hypothesis can pose for the Darwinist. I love how Atkins declared his desire for a serious debate at the beginning of this conversation, yet spent his entire time with ad hominem attacks and platitudinous statements throughout the rest of the conversation.
I think Atkins just needs a bit of love. Settings the arguments aside, you can tell he’s a very bitter man. Stephens mannerisms are top-notch and his got a valid scientific argument which is completely being dismissed only for the reason that it implies a creator.
But fornhim, love arises in the brain from chemicals. Then why protest if someone or some animal tries to harm him or his family. He should just sit and watch if his grandchild is being mauled by a dog. Afterall, its just chemicals and chance at play.
Although I believe ID is the better explanation, I was disappointed with Justin's moderation of this debate. There were moments that Prof Atkins should've been given more time to make his case. I think hearing his objections would've made his position that much more clearly foolish. I really liked Stephen's response to the "intellectually lazy" remark and again, Atkins wasn't given the space to respond more fully. Was Justin showing Atkins Christian charity by keeping him from totally embarrassing himself?
The top of the reasoning from evolutionists, when simplifed, is "Evolution is a fact, therefore evolution is a fact." Example, Atkins pointed out that there is a natural process that generates information. ----> My ears are opened and I am excited to hear what it is. ---> Atkin: It's Evolution. ----> Me: Facepalm. Circular reasoning again... Evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact?!?!
Carl Sagan: “the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together” ... regardless by what or whom, you just can't deny it is designed; When you see a car or a piece of furniture, you know for sure someone designed and created it, why would that be any different looking at an orchid, or a dragonfly
@jiin5993 Whats wring with having an open mind...study both creationism and naturalism. Examine both and then decide for yourself. Remember, at the end of the day, only you can chart your destiny.
Dr Atkins is not the first to confuse order with information. (that is 'functionally specified' information, such as the digital code found in DNA.) While lawlike necessity produces dramatic structures, from the far flung wheeling galaxies, to crystals, and to the swirling vortex in my bath, it has yet to come up with a good limerick. ref: 10:00
Asking the question, 'Did an intelligent agent do this?' (or concluding that it has, most likely done it), does not end science. We would simply go on to explore the nature of the agent scientifically. One more thing to my atheist and materialist friends; Why all the name-calling and insults? I think that it's because usually they present argument via slur.
Emperor with no clothes ........ here is where they *&$$ in the foot. They have to explain everything in materialistic natural processes so they are stuck in a loop we on the other hand see the genius behind the design and they claim us backward
When any government or private enterprise decides to build a brand new city with all the necessary infrastructure inbuilt would A) the citizens be moved or asked to take up residency once all the structers were in place or B) ask the citizens to move whilst the city was being built . This question is for ID .mr Meyers .
Atkins says "don't interrupt me", but continuously interrupts Meyer.
I keep reading comments saying the same thing but it seemed to me Stephen did the lions share of interrupting. And I'm on Stephens side.
@@thermal1580 but Stevens not saying "dont interupt me"....Ward is.
You cant say "dont interupt me" and then proceed to interupt someone.....get the point?
One is being hypocritical and the other isnt.
Every atkins debate ever. Ive seenem
Unfortunately, Stephen used spontaneous statement.
@@thermal1580 Bet that tactic doesn't serve you well in discussions. I'll also wager that you believe that it does!
Dr. Meyer, More people appreciate your work than you probably think. Keep pushing it.
This proves religion is not only ridiculously stupid, but it's also dangerous.
TH-cam and social media have brought about a pardigmn shift. A student at school can educate himself on alternative theories through the internet, even though they are forced to study whats just in the textbooks. At the end of the day, these Darwinian scientists are in the minority. If any one of them find themselves in grave physical danger, why dont rely on pure chance to save themselves. Dont try to protect yourself in anyway...leave it up to chance. It would be great if one of them could be dumped in the middle of Ukraine frontlines and let them take their chances.
Keep up the good fight Dr Stephen Meyer. People like yourself, Dr Michael Behe, Dr Wells among many others, are capturing the future of biological science. Love your work............
Professor Denis Noble is another brilliant one, especially with his theory of Biological Relativity... his wiki doesn't even do him justice of what he's given to science.
Exactly..they are the future of biology
Dean Philip Saunders •••
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
I wish Dr Meyer would talk about that .
@@mcmanustony no it’s because each of them are some of the most proven theories to date. And because 98% of biologists and even 70% of Christians accept it as the correct model. Even notable Christians such as John Lennox and even the pope. The evidence supporting evidence is extraordinary and is only getting more and more conclusive. Creationists have Been trying to and failing to pome holes in it for years.
mcmanustony believing everything came from nothing is utter nonsense rather , educated people yet going against their own logic to believe everything came from nothing that’s what you call utter and complete nonsense , you see if there is no life after this then no problem we all will be warm food but if there is life after this than guess where you and these ( priests of science ) will be , let me tell you , nothing but fire house made of fire clothing made a fire food which you won’t be able eat but that will be the only thing available so you will force yourself to eat and all this only cz some educated ignorants said everything came from nothing and you believed them
Stephen meyer deserves a medal above and beyond for tolerating this rude intolerant atkins character
@@mcmanustony as opposited to Atkins zealous arrogant self righteous clap trap.....so you give over!
@@mcmanustony LOL. Where peer review is done precisely by people like Atkins? Shrill cries of "Peer review" and "consensus" are what people say when they don't have actual counter arguments to what Meyer is saying.
@@mcmanustony I like how u said you werent crying peer review, but then cried peer review more.
@@mcmanustony he is good at chemistry, but terrible at logic and philosophy.
@@mcmanustony perhaps, that's not something we can test, what we can do instead is to acknowledge that he got humiliated by Meyer.
Atkins comes off as a condescending, arrogant jerk. At one point, Meyers stumped him and he said he needed to "collect his thoughts." Haha . Meyers is not only intelligent, he gives a great argument for his theory.
AND STILL THE CHAMPION, winning this debate in the first round by TKO, Stephen Meyer!!!!!!!!
yes
👏
did you actually listen to it ?????
@@dopeydonaldtrump3744 Yes, I did hear the old man plucking his ears and mumbling things about his faith in nothingness..
@@dopeydonaldtrump3744 I did and as an atheist I was disappointed that Atkins came across as weak and insulting. He should have crushed him with science and logic
Atkins comes across as a hectoring bully. Huge moment of hypocrisy when he berates Meyer for engaging in typical creationist tactics of steamrolling, and then does exactly the same thing to Meyer when it's his turn to talk, interrupting him relentlessly. As a Brit, I apologize for Atkins on behalf of my country.
Meyer has for more education to his favor so ignorance goes in Atkins corner(his arrogance shed light to his level of ignorance)
Child abuse? Teaching them to mutilate their body is not? Utter nonsense
@@megalibra82 homosexuality is a vile lifestyle by choice of those who are sexually perverted... abnormalities is defects faulted by deficiency, medical errors, etc...wow; ignorance...look up the meaning of words before use
@@michellenurse456 I know the meaning and you are in no position to lecture me lady. You are a scared lonely witch thinks she have a morale highground because you find something repulsive with your instincts. No one care about your feeling dear or how you find such act abnormal its been there since the dawn of time and it will keep up. Dad issues much?
@@megalibra82 name calling? Wow. You are behaving exactly like the names you are addressing everyone here. I am not and don't care to lecture especially you, the way you are conducting yourself speaks volumes...shameful
Mr Atkins is not listening the oponents at all! He is prejudice, closed minded darwinist, not even close to science! He is so arrogant! He is completely missing the point. Mr Meyer, well done! Thank you for your tremendous work!
Sweeeet....... I was wondering if it was worth listening to......but if your comment is anything to go by then Atkins must of been in great form. Not entertaining the fool too much and essentially just ignoring him for entertainment purposes.....nice
@@jerichosharman470 Atkins is an absolute joke and it shows even in 2021
@@dorgonreborn4108 I guess we just get sick of hearing the same nonesense from believers and it often seems so childish it gets frustrating .
Jericho Sharman bruh... there are secular scientists that agree the theory of evolution is retarded... what bias rock have you been under?
Just because an argument is old or has been used for years doesn’t make it invalid or any less powerful... Atkins is easily one of the most openly dishonest people do ever step on the stage for ANY debate... he’s trash 🤷🏻♂️
@@dorgonreborn4108 so what if there are secular scientists that believe that.....there are secular scientist that believe in the power of astrology too.
Science is beyond the individual.....and the scientific method ensures that. Evolution is shown by the facts of reality and the scientific method for decades.....so Christian arguments are often quite frustrating as they are so childish and weak ......it’s easily tests many of us.
Ps....secular Doesnt autmatically imply atheist
I have met professor Atkins and asked one one question that he couldn't answer. I asked how did life found it's way to matter? He couldn't answer
Stephen never interrupted him. He started a thought/line of inquiry and refused to be interrupted. There is a difference.
Atkins lists three different name calling insults and then says he doesn't want the debate to be name calling... weird.
+Charles Gable He is an older gentleman and just gets upset due to his advanced age and cultural bias.
It's unbelievable. It seems like every single proponent of evolution is an arrogant prick. Instead of actually discussing the evidence they try to belittle and make jokes about ID to avoid talking about the flaws and holes in their THEORY. You can just tell by this debate that Stephen Meyer is MUCH more intelligent. Every time he makes a point the rebuttal is just "no no no" and the an insult. That's just an absolutely fucking cowardly debate tactic.
Kevin Kuhlman Atkins is an old curmudgeon. He comes from the same hometown as Ebenezer Scrooge. But, criticism is desired as long as it given with good manners.
They are right, though.
I agree. He makes a statement and when Stephen try's to answer Atkins starts saying he is being interrupted. Stephen is on point and makes claims that he backs up and Atkins just says "nonsense" and gives no real answer. He has his opportunity to refute and has nothing that Stephen doesn't squash immediately.
Atkins keeps introducing strawman and rewording Stephens position.
This is why I like these debates. Both sides can provide their best arguments and the naturalist never present anything to refute. They are arrogant, interrupt and make all the points the ID proponent is trying to make. He confirmed they are stacking the deck. This is strong evidence they are in trouble.
How it is possible to explain Inteligent Design to Peter Atkins when he is not inteligent?
This is the most legit question I ever heard on such debates. So beautifully asked! Lol
Keep up the good work Atkins. If this is the best that naturalism has to offer, then you will continually turn more and more people to ID, and God
The steel man argument used on either side will bring as all closer to the truth…
He’s a terrible debater, Sean Carroll could do much better
Atkins' highly scientific rebuttals....1) nonsense 2) no it isn't 3) that's a lie
MountainDew7
He sounded a bit like a Monty Python skit
The Pharaoh
Infinite regress is impossible. Here is an explanation for you. God is....the timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal, intelligent designer of our universe. You are proof He exists. Sorry that isn't enough for you. Life is proof that He exists. The fact that you can reason is proof that He exists. It already has been proven.
Something from nothing, material from the immaterial, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from the inanimate. These are the highly "rational" conclusions based on no evidence that your worldview forces you to accept. Your God given freewill allows you to deny the obvious. Psalm 14:1
@@mountaindew7190
You just proved what The Pharoah said precisely. Well done 🖒🖒
Ken Walter Not an argument.
@@mountaindew7190
That's correct. It was a statement, followed by a sarcastic (not) compliment and two thumbs up in emoji form. How good of you to notice. Bravo!!
Old Peter Atkins did not give any coherent explanation for the source of information in DNA, nor could he rationalise the added information that would have been necessary for increasing complexity. He kept on trying to invoke 'evolution' as if that word by itself was as sufficient explanation for the obvious lack of insight by atheists into the complexity of life. These guys just hate the idea of a God.
Evolution IS the explanation because it is by RANDOM mutations and natural SELECTION.......which means this overall mechanism is NOT RANDOM. So Peter Atkins is correct to "invoke evolution as if that word, by itself was sufficient explanation for the complexity of life". Unless you want him to keep repeating the words "by random mutation and natural selection" all the time...........that could get quite irritating after a point. Science is ONLY about explaining natural world phenomena, it has NOTHING to say God...............this is philosophy. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the last time I noted, this is not an organisation that "hates God". Evolution is an explanation for the natural world phenomenon of life, it has nothing to do with belief systems of religion or atheism. The only hate going on here is the hatred that some people have for science and its job of examining the natural world. The issue of how life came about as it has is NOT one of design vs no design...............it is one of Design? What design? Natural Design with its testable explanation that has come up trumps (apologies to Democrats there lol) vs Intelligent Design and its mechanism.............which is.....................?????????????? waiting, waiting, waiting. One might argue that an intelligence is behind (at some level) the mechanism that is evolution, this is entirely philosophy..............unless you think that "God" is a natural world being, such as a PhD post doc student on Andromeda Galaxy and we are his experiment. (but then who or what is the God that created him?.....turtles)
No need to get hot under the collar. With all this hot air, still no explanation for the information in the DNA- not the DNA itself. Evolutionists cannot seem to draw a distinction between materialism and intelligence. Its only four letters ACGT but its the arrangement, the sequence, the precision, that produces the right proteins which do the right work in the cell. That takes a mind...the mind of GOD.
I will take this one last opportunity to explain the information that is in the DNA. I presume that we share the understanding that the information is in the sequence of the base pairs, as you have written above. This pairing possibly came about by some sort of inexplicable intelligence, no one can ever "prove" that this is not so. This is a philosophical proposal that has no mechanism that can be tested, unless one has in mind a natural creature under a mushroom or on another planet (which would make it an explicable intelligence). The observation that there is a sequence that represents something meaningful is fair enough and if people want to suggest that this has all the hallmarks of an intelligent source then by all means, go for it. But without an actual mechanism that can be tested, then this is an inference and nothing more in the scientific sense. Call it philosophy then so be it, but without a testable mechanism then it is simply not science. Science makes no claims about God, either way, it simply looks for naturalistic mechanisms, that is its job. In the case of evolution, there IS a mechanism that explains how the sequence of base pairs came about, the information if you will. Firstly the base pair randomly mutates and this results in a different protein. If that protein is beneficial to the cellular function or phenotype, thus enabling improved chances of reproduction, then the base pair will have a better chance of being retained for the next generation than a mutation that doesn't yield advantage. This is done at the statistical level, over vast numbers over vast times and is not purely random...it is NATURALLY SELECTED. Regardless of what ever one thinks about the Almighty, THIS is a natural explanation for the sequence of base pairs, so called information, and it is testable. Now, as it happens, the results have come up trumps for this mechanism, so much so that this mere hypothesis has now graduated to the grand status of scientific THEORY. However this was never guaranteed. We have only found this out over the past 150+ years with the CONSILIENCE of evidence that forms the Darwinian synthesis and of course its scrutiny never ends. This consilience involves a mind boggling degree of data points from entirely unrelated fields that have entirely different mechanisms and approaches of testing that continually and relentlessly zero in on the same conclusions while fundamentally never falsifying Darwin's original and, might I suggest, tentative proposal. Tentative because Darwin was a religious man of his time and was greatly disturbed by his findings, but like the proper scientist, he allowed the evidence to take him where ever it must. This was evidence and consilience that Darwin himself could not have ever imagined in his lifetime. If the ID people just professed a philosophical belief in their "inference to an intelligent agency" then one could, in principle, accept this. However, this is not what is being done here. As I wrote above, the non "God hating", Catholic Church has no problem with this. They appear to know what science is, what it does and what it does not, at least in the very broad sense.
@@sturtfc are you trained in biology? You offer a pretty good rebuttal to many of the comments on here.
@@atticusjones
I have a tertiary qualification in the life sciences but, actually, this is not the point, which is really about understanding the philosophical basis of science and how it works. The best thing that Stephen Meyer can do is go head back to philosophy class and prosecute his agenda within the philosophy profession instead of thinking he and his ilk can simply redefine what we now know in the modern world as “science” (as opposed to the more historical and more general usage of this word to mean “all knowledge”) and then barging his way into the science profession. This video here would be an excellent resource.
th-cam.com/video/o38eZ__xhO8/w-d-xo.html
Here, a REAL philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, gives a nice explanation, by way of his sports analogy, of how we got to what we now know as “modern science” and how it WORKS, which is what makes it such an awesome and indeed successful human enterprise. Essentially being that there is no “provable” reason why modern science need be what it is, it’s just been a matter of tinkering with the rules and then what works becomes the rules of “the game”. It is perfectly reasonable for someone like Stephen Meyer to head on over to the American Baseball Commission (?) and suggest introducing or even replacing some laws of American Baseball with the laws of English Cricket that he may’ve picked up during his sojourn there. But if, by trial and error, the cricket laws turn baseball into an unworkable nonsense in practice, then out go his suggestions. All sports have evolved by such a process of trial and error into a competitive human activity that WORKS, not because someone with an agenda thought they knew the best game of sport within the confines of their own head. It is not reasonable, nor acceptable, for someone like Stephen Meyer to just turn up at the baseball pitch and commence to bowl the ball “over arm style” if this ruins the game and then wonder why his baseball colleagues are trying to get him off the pitch and back to the Baseball Commission with his “cricket ideas”. The reason why mainstream science is based ONLY on discovering NATURAL LAWS is because it WORKS, not because they don’t like God......or cricket....or whatever. If Stephen Meyer thinks he has the “practical methodology” to discover “all knowledge” or the putative “true reality” then may I suggest he stick with the philosophy class and see if his ideas might eventually percolate out into the science class. It’s taken centuries for the philosophy project, going back to the ancient Greeks, yes before the time of Christ, to move from its more general quest for “knowledge” and “true reality” to this specific quest for “what works”. But now we have this ID mob trying to ruin the game of baseball because Stephen Meyer got some big ideas while watching English cricket on TV and thought it reasonable to expect his American mates to just immediately introduce these new rules for the next baseball game at the park without even working it out on the rules committee and then testing its practicality in trial games. And this has nothing to do with muzzling free speech or academic freedom or whatever certain individuals make of the supernatural, but it’s clear that this has a lot to do with the “Religio-Conservative” agenda to prosecute their socio-political world view at all costs. Claiming the undoubted success of the “modern science” enterprise while, at the very same time, potentially turning it into an unworkable mess.
Specifically, Stephen Meyer makes a lot of this analogy between “human intelligence” and the putative “supernatural intelligence” and all this stuff about “agency creating the initial and boundary conditions” of “historical science” before we get into the nomological (lawful but not logically necessarily or theoretically explicable) stuff. This all sounds so “sciency”, it almost makes sense in that plausible way that we can expect from people with a culturo-political agenda that is all about rationalising their a priori. The analogy doesn’t work. On this basis Meyer makes references to how the “historical sciences” such as historicity, anthropology, archeology etc work by inferring human agency before, not so deftly, switching to infer to supernatural agency wrt the DNA sequence and his so called “asymmetric order”. He and his ilk make the absurd analogy of the information in the DNA sequence being attributable to a supernatural agency in the same way as real scientists attribute human created IT code. The kind part of me can only think that Stephen Meyer conflates human consciousness itself with our studies of the “natural operations” of the human mind. We really don’t have a handle on human consciousness, the search for a natural explanation is on but, in principle, until we have such a thing, we are stuck with the conjecture that human consciousness is potentially supernatural.......eeeerh “Godlike”. Who knows? It thus appears that Stephen Meyer therefor equates the definitional supernatural agency of God’s intelligence/agency with the WORKINGS of human intelligence/agency. When real scientists examine historical artefacts such as the Rosetta Stone and ascribe them to human agency they do so on the basis of a naturalistic understanding of the way our consciousness has been observed to work, not by presuming to know what human consciousness is. Ie, behavioural patterns and human cognition etc. By definition, God is all powerful and all knowledgable, God is entirely capricious in time and space. In effect, God might be the uncaused explanation for the bold fact of the lawfulness of the universe but God is itself unlawful, God is a law unto itself. BY DEFINITION. Try factoring that DEFINITION of supernatural agency into the so called prosaic workings of God. This ID nonsense is just turning God into a celestial tinkerer, a gigantic humanoid, just as a socio-political agenda would prefer. God is “their man”. The only way this analogy might work is if the intelligent agency behind the DNA sequence was able to be examined naturalistically by the way that its cognition and behaviour manifested itself. A PhD graduate student on Andromeda Galaxy perhaps? Of course the ID people know full well the absurdity of their position and so they simply leave this nonsensical option as open. Yeah right, fooling no one. The analogy doesn’t work.
The ID project demeans sincerely held faith, messes up philosophy but, worst of all, it ruins the very reason why “modern science” (if we must call it that) is such an awesome human project, it works. All so that its “agents” can press their socio political world view. That’s a mighty big price for us all to pay should they get any traction. No wonder mainstream Catholicism won’t have a bar of this rubbish!
Many of the comments here complain that Peter Atkins merely repeats the retort “Evolution by Natural Selection” as if this makes it so. This is simply an example of why it is a nonsense for a legitimate scientist like Peter Atkins to do these silly debates. In the short space of time allowed, numerously interrupted by the irritating promotions for the books and movies, someone like Peter Atkins simply doesn’t have the time nor opportunity to explain the details of this wonderful project of humanity that has taken dedicated and real scientists about a 150 years and more to realise. And apparently brought crashing down in a screaming heap by Stephen Meyers and his ilk blathering on with their fake “science”. Most of the commentary here appears to go by the logic, “ooooooh, I don’t like this horrible chap Peter Atkins, ergo Evolution must be a nasty atheistic effort to undermine God and so is not true”. Phew.
Having written all that, I found the Peter Atkins v Stephen Meyer debate to be simply a promo for a Stephen Meyer book and a nonsensical movie with a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories plus an appalling ambush and misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins. I really don’t know why Peter Atkins bothered and I can’t understand why he was being so nice about it all?
I can see why a “philosopher of science” like Michael Ruse might spare the time to challenge people like Stephen Meyer, perhaps we can accept this as “philosophy class”. Call it the “Baseball Rules Committee” where all rule changes are on the table, even the cricket rules, in the interests of open and free speech. Why not? Go for it. But I have no idea why someone like Peter Atkins bothered to engage such rubbish “out on the baseball playing pitch” where a serious human endeavour is being played out? Particularly in a forum that was essentially just a promo for a very bad movie. I think Peter Atkins was just being too nice.
Merely saying the word evolution over and over again makes it science. Got it. And I thought science was hard.
Evolution used to be the last refuge, of the atheist, from God. Now there are theistic evolutionists, that pisses them off even more lol, coz abiogensis is bogus.
@@mcmanustony I guess you weren't listening much hahahaha
mcmanustony To the debate 😂 you obviously didn’t listen to it based on your comment... Atkins is a dishonest and willingly ignorant person especially in regards to the scientists that DISAGREE based on the evidence 😂 the same damn evidence he’s looking at... it’s hilarious... ad Homs and strawmen is what this fossils reality is made out of... literally gets knocked around left and right in ever debate he attends 😂 dunning Kruger at its finest
Hahaha
mcmanustony 😂🤦🏻♂️ you sound so sad that it’s more probable you were designed and there is a purpose/meaning to life... you atheists really crack me up 😂 don’t even get me started on the relativism or lack of foundation for possibility or impossibility... stop eating so much fibre... your shit is weak 🤣
Atkins is so emotional in this. He sounds like the one has shut down to questions. He simply proves Meyer’s point of scientific bias.
Atkins does a superb job of reinforcing the stereotype of the rigidly closed mind of a typical academic. Even before I was an engineering student over 65 years ago, I always enjoyed examining things and trying to figure out how things were constructed and worked, and never allowed presuppositions to inhibit my inquiry.
You are not intelligent enough to understand Atkins.
Your mind was so open that your brains fell off. Intelligent design creationists are so stupid. Their argument is Life is too complex to have a designer but God who is more complicated doesn’t need a designer. So stupid 😂
@@ruaraidh74
Wow what stupid logic 😂.
1. What is the evidence the universe was designed ? If it’s complexity then God is more complex and therefore is in more need of a designer 🤦😂.
2. How do you distinguish whether something is designed or whether it’s undesigned ?
3. It’s your claim God is not designed, for which you or your God doesn’t have any evidence. If life is too complex to have been designed then God is much more complex to have been not designed. Your logic leads to an infinite regress with increasing complexity at every step which means impossible.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube
@@ruaraidh74 I am amazed how you think you refuted my age old arguments no religious man has ever refuted 😂. It’s called Dunning Kruger effect.
1. Complexity or order are the same thing 🤦. I don’t know what you gain by playing these word games. If your brain is having difficulty processing my arguments with the word “complexity”replace it with the word “order”. If the universe is so “ordered” that it needs a designer then your designer which has a consciousness and is much more “ordered” needs a bigger reason for a designer. That’s why your top down assertion fails.
You just asserted that there has to be an uncreated designer who designed everything. This statement is just an assertion. What evidence do you have that everything needs an uncreated designer? You also need to demonstrate how & why your designer can lie outside your set of designed things.
2. I think I used simple English words. Yes I am asking you what method you use to label something as designed ?
3. “A designer of everything” is also a logical fallacy 😂🤦. Everything is designed but my designer which falls under everything is not designed, you have asserted and created a special set for your designer 😂. This logical fallacy which you have committed is called “special pleading”.
@@ruaraidh74 Yes these arguments have never been refuted. You not being able to answer my questions proves my point.
1. Ok so you need a cereal box to distinguish between complexity and order.😂😭
Nobody says it’s a complex mess. We say it’s a random mess🤦. Define the words complex and order for me ( use google ).
I will keep my questions short and not let you run away.
2.1 What methods do you use to determine if something is designed.( I asked this two times but you ran away )
2.2 Again it’s your assertion “God ( the most ordered thing ) designed everything “. What evidence do you have? What is asserted without evidence can be thrown away without evidence. 😂
3.
Statement 1: Universe is ordered therefore needs a designer.
Statement 2: My designer is more ordered than the universe but doesn’t need a designer. For some emotional reason I am asserting God doesn’t need a designer.
This is special pleading. You lost bro 😎.
If you have little intelligence then you can figure this out.
Stephen Meyer is right: 'spontaneous order' and 'information' are not the same. Peter Atkins' argument is not convincing to show otherwise.
I agree Sir. Mr Atkins is an arrogant ridged prick
It's breathtaking that Atkins still debates publicly. He's been so humiliated over and over (such as in this debate) that I'm astonished that his brain allows him to continually get flogged publicly...
... he like's it ?
(I know, God forgive me, but I could not resist ❤✝👍)
Yeh, he's a glutton for punishment. Or maybe he keeps coming back for more because he feels like he's failed miserably in his previous debates.
I think Atkins is too arrogant to ever feel "humiliated".
If someone thinks he got "flogged", it's because they were too stupid to see his cleverness.
Atkins calls this charlatan for the snake oil seller Meyer is.
😭😭
Stephen Meyer is an amazing guy. He has many degrees and knows lot from many different subjects. I don’t know what he does but he seem he doesn’t age.
Dr Atkins says Discovery Institute should close its doors? He just proved the point of the movie "Expelled."
@@mcmanustonyI guess you don’t actually follow them
@@mcmanustony they aren’t a right wing fundamentalist group, that’s ridiculous. The very fact that most of them are old earth creationists makes them non-fundamentalists. You realize that the science revolution was started by Christians right? Are you saying the group that started the scientific revolution are going to corrupt it?
The hubris of Atkins just amazes me. He offered nothing to the discussion. Just ad-hominem attacks and non-rational explanations with no scientific basis. Stephen sounds like a scientist and offers evidence and well articulated arguments whereas Atkins just screams no no no like some kind of religious fanatic.
Very well said and I completely agree. What he blurted out was nothing but nonsense in a pathetic attempt to put ID back in a box where it refuses to go. He offered nothing other than entertainment (at his expense) to the discussion. Listening to him leaves no doubt that the Theory of Evolution is a cult.
Because Atkins could't debate the the Logos argument of Dr. Meyers, he was using ad-hominem to attack Dr Meyers Ethos, old trick in rhetoric.
@@lvg777 to be fair, evolution is not the same as Darwinism, which is the religion of atheists.
@@SincerityAF hmmm it what sense, because Neo-Darwinism is a modern branch of it, still filled with atheistic lies: relying on “good” mutations for genetic diversity to create a new species, the theory that non living things can create livings, not accounting for the body system changes that need to occur to allow good mutations to occur, the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion still suggest that neo darwinsm is wrong...
Atheist need to stop giving Darwin the glizzy and listen to science
@@harrisonparsons9178 100% agree with you there brother. I just meant that scientists who explain how evolution works as "an observation of biological change over time" shouldn't be attacked as a "cult" ... Rather what should be attacked is the Darwinian mechanism that atheists have used to hijack the theory of how evolution occurs. Equivocating one mechanism loved by a cult for the collective paradigms of the theory is problematic, since, after all, our good friend Dr. Meyer is working on the ID model of evolution.
Atkins disrespectful, closed-minded behavior made me cringe several times for a fellow adult male.
Agreed. Embarrassing for Peter.
Atkins got steamrolled here though. He's a bully, but at least give him the chance to show it. I almost empathized with him here.
Dr Stephen Meyer is a gentleman and a scholar.
he's a christian
If evolution is such a slam dunk brute fact why did Atkins get humiliated when debating an intelligent designer?
Wasn’t Galileo and others like him non-entities also? I am not comparing Myers work to Galileos but I am comparing their political situations. That’s is the main point here in my opinion. If you take the time to fully understand Meyers argument you would see that he used Darwin’s own scientific methods in formulating his arguments for Intelligent design. Therefore, you cannot say that Meyers work is unscientific without calling Darwin’s work unscientific. People like Atkins aren’t even bothering to read his work. They are just dismissing him right off the bat. That IS NOT SCIENCE.
@@mcmanustony I hear and see a lot of assertion with nothing to back it up but your presuppositions and out right opinion. Meyer has a PhD. and was a tenured professor of History and the Philosophy of science from Cambridge university. Do you know who else was educated at Cambridge? Stephen Hawking. “No Galileo was an intellect of supreme intelligence and Stephen Meyer is not” - bruh Ok. That’s not an argument. You do know that Galileos teachings were ostracized and mocked by people much like yourself right? Like I said in my original statement I am not comparing the twos work. I am comparing their political situation. Not allowing people to speak and share their findings especially if they follow scientific reasoning and standard scientific practices is a dangerous thing to do. People like you suppress speech.
@@mcmanustony
Proof of Assertion, presupposition and opinion:
1. Telling me what I see and understand
“No you don’t”
2. Telling me what I am and what I believe without knowing or asking me
“All I see is a creationist”
Please prove your statements....otherwise they are just smear tactics
Also, his PhD is in the Philosophy of Science which makes him more than credible when discussing a lot of this issue. One of the issues the philosophy of science concerns itself with is whether or not something can be called science. Meyer constantly defers to research from other scientists who are more knowledgeable than him in his field. That’s standard scientific practice
Finally, your statement about Meyer not being a scientist is 100% false. By definition Meyer is a scientist
scientist
noun [ C ]
US /ˈsaɪən.tɪst/ UK /ˈsaɪən.tɪst/
B1
an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences:
This is right from the Cambridge dictionary
You are correct about my statement about his credentials. I worded the statement wrong. I meant to say that he was a student there.
@@mcmanustony It’s no fetish it’s derived directly from your statements. If you want to seriously argue about something you can’t just go around making claims that you cannot back up. I am not a creationist at all. That is just one claim you made. You hop around on all these forums making outlandish claims for which you have no evidence. That is why you are insignificant and exactly why nobody should listen to what you have to say. In your last statement it seemed like you were part of academia or even a PHD yourself. If you are either one of those you should be ashamed of yourself. If not then I guess it’s typical of a you tube smear tactician.
@@mcmanustony I quote “Meyers is not a scientist”....
Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious.
Strange how the champion of science
wants to censor an entire area of research.
+mcmanustony nope you are very wrong. creation is in the rise.Gallup polls indicate this.
www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
That's because the major papers will not accept his publications, but will shamelessly publish 'refutations' of ID. The whole world now talks about the flagellum motor mechanism and hundreds of publications exist to 'refute'.
"Whole world now talks.............."..............?? not getting a little ahead of ourselves here are we?
+ vicachcoup. "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious. Strange how the champion of science wants to censor an entire area of research." My thoughts exactly. Stephen Meyer so arrogantly and pompously wants to change science to suit his ideological agenda and so end the research. What an obnoxious git. I totally agree with your sentiments vicachcoup.
+M wow, just what science needs to prove its theories, a Gallup poll. Who needs scientific rigour when we have vox pop? Then I looked up this link www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ and......."Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Evolution is not undirected.......evolution is directed NATURALLY by the interaction between the phenotype and the environment within which it operates (and survives) and the feedback loop this provides to the randomly mutating DNA molecule. This mis information is exactly the reason why people confuse evolution with a random process. The "SELECTION" in natural selection is what directs it and makes it non random. This is not "directed vs non directed"....it is "Directed?, What Directed?". Why naturally directed of course. In addition, the claim here that "ID is a scientific theory..." is simply preposterous. Any high school student who managed to stay awake in science class would know that a scientific theory is a long long long term project to gain broad acceptance within the scientific consensus. Irrespective of what one thinks of this IDEA, a scientific theory it is NOT.......by definition. Having such a statement on the Discovery Institute page simply reveals that these shameful people need to go straight back to high school science class and start all over again. Then......."ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause." Making inferences from observations is just the starting point in developing a hypothesis, anyone can do that. The serious step in developing a hypothesis is to propose a testable mechanism and then deduce predictions and see if these are corroborated or falsified. Claims that these "natural objects bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause" is simply an argument by analogy that conflates the "natural world" with the "human design world". Analogies make interesting communication (indeed, rhetorical) tools and may help to win debates when delivered in front of a naïve audience, but explanatory mechanisms and evidence they are NOT. The mechanism by which evolution explains the natural world phenomenon of life is "random mutation and natural selection". The mechanism by which ID explains the natural world phenomenon of life is.............????? waiting waiting waiting
Peter Atkins interrupts Meyer speaking about the 4 chemical structures that are along the spine of the double helix of DNA, which acts as a sort of alphabet, and the fact that the origin of this structure has not be resolved, a point which Dawkins had admitted in the end of his book, "Expel"...which was a point Meyer was arguing against a point by Atkins, about structures just "popping up". Atkins had finished his point, and smugly stated, "do you want me to go on". Meyer answers, but Atkins constantly interrupts and speaks over Meyers point, getting progressively louder, so as to drown out his point, saying, "well we all know that, that, that, that is 'old hat' "...Then goes on to scold his opponent, and says: "don't use the typical tactic of intelligent design/creationism by being a 'steamroller' , overriding serious argument. I'm prepared to engage with you, IF you will engage with serious argument with me. But, I WANT SPACE TO DEVELOP MY ARGUMENT. I don't want you to interrupt me, everytime I get closer to the truth...tha...tha...ah that you enjoy..." Demanding what he is not prepared to give! So much more could happen in this world, if we would respect those we do not agree with, and LISTEN kindly. We all learn best in an environment of respect. Sad that Atkins wasn't intelligent enough to see that point.
charliesgrl2 honesty, truth and respect for others are not high on his priority list. Money and building a reputation among the atheist, agnostic and bible critics-community is (which translates to money again, also a different type of reputation among the opposite side of the debate which also can be turned into more money and attention). Religious debaters and lecturers do it too but less obvious (they also try to justify the high cost for their material as a service to God, the money is going to be re-invested, you see, in their project, well... minus their high standard living costs of course, fancy venues and catering, etc. Operating costs. I saw John Lennox and a whole bunch of others do a series of their lectures on a luxury cruise and those prices to go to those lectures... they were insane! Only for the rich and excentric who are bored and want to feel all smart and sophisticated just like the Dawkins' and Hitchens' flocks I guess).
Here's what I found:
Join Discovery Institute for an Alaskan Cruise, July 26 to August 2, and Meet the Stars of the Intelligent Design Movement!
Evolution News & Views October 30, 2013
...Featured speakers will include Dr. Stephen C. Meyer,... Dr. John Lennox.
Space is extremely limited. Reserve your room now to get the best selection and pricing!
[then checking the pricing:]
Interior Stateroom ($1,199 - $1,219)
Ocean View ($1,349 - $1,449)
Verandah ($1,999 - $2,089)
Signature Suite ($2,299 - $2,449)
Neptune Suite ($3,249 - $3,749)
[ka-ching, I'm sure those debaters get some kind of bonus for holding their lectures there and drawing extra customers for that cruise during that period, not to mention perhaps not having to pay for a room themselves and all the luxuries they're enjoying]
Uenbg
I would point out that those are fairly standard fees for a ticket on a cruise ship. Being that this is the case, then the price for the seminar itself was...what?
Hearing the debate Peter Atkins ask like a lawyer in a court “Yes” or “No” which he knows in science you need to be flexible to change and bend and arrive to a conclusive end to a point. Dr. Atkins is defending a status quo of atheist’s evolution and they don't admit they lost the debate and it’s time to admit. Probably Dr. Atkins has been teaching evolution for 3 decades and wasn’t challenged in class by any student yet. Someone said "don't get angry" lol
Peter Atkins is one of the most aggressive, condescending and arrogant people I have ever heard speak.
And that's saying something. Not seconds after stipulating that Meyer not interrupt, he is yapping like a Chihuahua every few seconds during Meyer's response.
I am on Atkins side and still felt sorry for him. Sorry. Actually, sorry.
Granted, Atkins is nothing but a tiny part of our side. A sorry part, but tiny nonetheless.
@@morganp7238You remind me of this verse in the Bible, Mark 5:9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." lol It doesn't help that you are many, man. What matters is that you are all wrong.
@@linikit You make no sense.
Try looking at the debate between Meyer, Lawrence Krauss and some evolutionary creationist from March 2016. Krauss was a MASSIVE douche. All of these atheist scientists use mocking and disdain as a rhetorical device when arguing against ID scientists.
Meyer ... bloody brilliant!
He's a christian. lol
Stephen is the man!!
He's a christian
I heard Atkins say in a debate we don't actually exist. How anyone can take him serious after that point is beyond me.
***** I would not go that far lol. He is deluded and very miss guided and in need of serious help but so far up his own butt that he will prob never get it unless there is a miracle. I would say that lol
***** I will tell you something you prob already know but never realized really much. Atheist tend to be grumpy control freaks, Christians tend to be cheerful truth seeking folks.
Anytime I come across an atheist i know it right away because of their attitude. There is a connection between grumpy butt hurt and atheism that is un deniable.
***** hahaha yea i agree. They claim ditching God makes you free, but then complain all day about God. Then they get grumpy and take it out on people and indoctrinate them at the schools to think as they do. This happens in every atheist country.
Joshua Hults You have probably misinterpreted his statement. He actually says that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero: positive being matter and negative being gravity. This is what happens when scientifically illiterate people try to interpret things that are beyond their knowledge and do not even try to research a bit before spewing out nonsense
Chic01taliano His view is that there does not need to be a beginning to the universe because nothing exist. Watch his debate some years back with Craig. He really says it, and the audience laughs. If you believe that is dumb than you ought not support such a person, especially someone who gets camera time.
DEVOLUTION has occurred. NOT evolution. --retired bio teacher
@Terncote Lol. Go away keyboard warrior.
@Terncote
I am as much disgusted as you, since there seems to be a lot of effort put into the destruction of public education. church and aristocrats liked School to indoctrinate People to be docile morons, but the mere discoveries science made sweeps the base for Elitist thinking away.
so instead of true scientific Research, they have People like Meyer mixing their personla opinions with Facts as if both Things are mutually interchangable. And they raise suspision without providing reason for it move on to the nex Point quickly to cast this fake auro of being well acquaintend with science.
I just drop one Name LENSKI EXPERIMENT. Watch Evolution LIVE there!
@Terncote
unlikely since the new Testament is already a compilation of contradicting stories….calling it one book authored by the spirit of god, is a futile, desperate attempt to paint it is from a single source.
@Chris Manzi
I would laugh if there would be something ambivalent here.
Science is not about faith. Scientists drop a belief once evidence disproves it. Christians do not. They even celebrate gullibility as a virtue.
One of many chrismatic men faked his death two thousand years ago to escape the wrath of the authorities and people believe he died, never checked the alternatives, and belief to be the descendants of Adam, the clay and soil golem.
Yeah, and since when atheist and what ever a "Darwinist" is according to you are the same. You do not need to be a scientist to be an atheist or the other way round.
The first guy who discovered the cosmic expansion George Lemaitre was a Jesuit priest. The American Hubble was only the second guy, by the way.
❤️
You nailed it, Meyer. Congrats!!
bible has been proven literally wrong so many times
'New information being added occurs by accident' says Peter Atkins. This is just one major reason why material evolutionary thinking is so flawed.
mcmanustony And where is the experimental result? I think you already mixed it with your dung.
mcmanustony That is not the issue. The issue here is how Atkins response to Meyer.
mcmanustony Working on my manners? Well you give me a headache. Working on my basic biology? Well,you do not know who you are dealing with.
mcmanustony Are you you contented with Atkins questioning like. Do you believe in evolution? Of course evolution is happening and I don't need you nor Atkins to convince me that it is happening right now, but that is not the of type evolution in issue.You delude yourself by eating every words materialist feeds you.
mcmanustony Ignoramus? No question that is the best response I ever heard from people who are mentally incapable.
There is only one scientist in this discussion and his name is Steven Meyer. Atkins is confrontational and is clearly just hanging on to his old archaic views and satisfying a system that is built on old knowledge. He lost this debate for me.
Yet all the Kings horses and all the Kings men..
Brother Ziti Al Forno - Peace Be Upon Him HE HAS A DEGREE IN PHYSICS
Brother Ziti Al Forno - Peace Be Upon Him MY MISTAKE, DEGREES DON'T MEAN SHIT.
@Mike Bready
It isn't an appeal to authority. It's examining his credentials in the field. The whole point is determining if he actually has the training to know what he's talking about. As it turns out, he doesn't.
@Language and Programming Channel
A PhD in philosophy of science is not the same as a PhD in an actual field of science. He studies the works of others, but doesn't have a field of expertise in science itself. Furthermore, he has shown time and again that he doesn't understand some of the details of the science he talks about.
The only intellectual laziness is exhibited by Atkins - who persists in name calling, after saying let's avoid name calling. He's making Meyer's case for the closed mindedness of materialist science.
+Sue Lani Madsen Atkins is correct when he says they are intellectually lazy because the ID community has failed to carry out the task of identifying the Agent, even internally amongst the ID community. Shouldn't they attempt to determine what the Agent is, its attributes and characteristics and then go about the business of identifying that Agent with some sort of methodology?
Identifying the Agent is a separate undertaking, unnecessary to the study of the cellular processes. Studying ocean tidal basins does not require concurrent study by the same team of solar mechanics and gravitational forces to understand clams.
Sue Lani Madsen Identification of the "Agent" is the point, and what his comment is based upon. ID just stops dead at ... There is an intelligent agent, full stop. The next step is to identify the agent which is more than logical. I understand that it may be separate to proving that and intelligent agent is required, but what is it, a hypothesis would be more scientific wouldn't it?
@118250630680132112099
YES, ID IS intellectual lazyness. Because ID is no more than just a blank page where they wrote "god did it". That is the whole "theory".
That is it. There are no expermients, no aplications, no details, no predictions. no description of processes, NOTHING. Is just nonsense. It doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory.
Not to mention that they dont even have a mechanism or any kind of experimentation developed to differentiate a naturally desgined organism from a "intelligently" designed organism.
And even worse, they dont even have a definition of what this "agent" is, does, WHO MADE HIM, and so on.
ID is EMPTY.
And ID is also a self refunting.
Because if this "agent" doesnt need a designer, then why do we?
To say that "agent A" (god) didnt need a designer, but agent B" (humans) did, is a completely arbitrary, unjusified and fallacious stupid argument. It is a text book example of a special pleading fallacy.
And im not even mentioning the fact that they are DISHONEST. They call it "agent" but they are actually referring to their particular god. Which they cannot mention anymore since they lost a trial in 2005 for being fraudulent and for trying to make pseudo science pass as science.
+Aguijon1982 L..O...L
Seriously, seriously...you sound so ignorant. You have NO CLUE what ID is about. Your arguments are what makes ID more convincing, because when people like yourself want to engage in debate over ID, and have never bothered to even understand it, it puts your extreme bias and presupposition on public display.
ID theorists make predictions.
ID theorists do lab work using ID theories to guide their research.
ID questions the philosophical underpinnings of modern science, and advances their theory with philosophical, metaphysical, mathematical, and evidence based discoveries.
ID uses a design inference type filter to detect agency, just as other branches of science already do!
ID makes no claims to identifying the designer!
Learn about what you are ridiculing, it will keep you from embarrassing yourself. ;)
As a former atheist, I can verify that it is an intellectually lazy philosophy.
How did you become a Christian
How is being an atheist intellectually lazy? Some would say that the theists are more lazy; you just accept everything a book or religious leader says without question. What was it that changed your mind?
@@DJRickard2010 ok people who are into deism do they get it from a book also Christina’s dust and athist do they get it from a book lol you think theism is just religion
@@DJRickard2010 Christian deist and athist do they get there morality for a book
@andrew gallovich thanks, what you said sounds pithy but I done understand it
When you are loosing an argument, you raise your voice, you use fallacy arguments, you yell, and you wave your arms and hands around alot like the Robot in Lost in Space. Steve had 'em rolled and baked. Good job Steve. Our schooling taught us well about critical thinking. I remember fondly the Symbolic Logic class with Forest Baird.
@@mcmanustony Except one thing.... You see.... I've known him personally, since 1976. He escorted me around campus as a visiting HS senior and then took physics classes together for the next three years. I played baseball with him, and had three years worth of friendship discussing things, like the amazing thoughtful order of Nature, with our Physics and Geology professors. So, yeah, ....no!....you don't get to climb the moral high ground mound of Intellectual Thought by calling folks names like "lying charlatan". That sir, is more Robot Arm Waving, as I described above. It is what it is. God made us, and that is a Good thing. Cheers!
It's amazing to me that one PhD thinks his views are so much better than another without the slightest scientific argument in play from the Brit. I fought a similar battle during my PhD in Psychology...I was highly discouraged (at times forbidden and once threatened with expulsion), from asking questions that might challenge the very core assumptions or assertions of my very philosophically based profession. Since so many Psychological assertions are not scientifically derived but rather taken to be "in principally true" without question, many of my professor's intransigence seemed anti-scientific to me. Happily, my chairman was very supportive and provided mentorship and air cover until I successfully defended my Dissertation. I'm still challenging the most basic materialist assumptions for the same reason Dr. Meyer does...Stephen, you have my most enthusiastic support.
It’s unfortunate you had to go through that. Science is supposed to encourage dissent and skepticism snd scrutiny. Perhaps the “principles” didnt hold up very well and your arguments were seen as an attack with those thriving in the bubble
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that 1) it does not explain the origin of life at all 2) There are no models that can show that random mutations can lead to speciation 2) the assumption that because natural selection can lead to small changes within a species that these small changes will lead to a new species. 3) the lack of researchers ability to genetically modify one species into another. Natural selection a the driving mechanism for evolution does not come close to explaining the diversity of life without a tremendous amount of assuming.
Peter is a smug arrogant man.
Abiogenesis has failed to generate meaningful specified sequenced information ..Stephen is correct!
This is one of my favorite of Stephen Meyer. I liked the way it started with Parody of Bad to the bone song and cracked me up of the kid in school. I really like how Stephen Meyer communicates ID. Would like to see more like this with the humor, because the subjects are touchy. So it is nice to be able to have light "moment" of laughter.
Lynda LAVERNE to find out more, google the Northern Cross by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
Google Night Signs by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
Google Jeff Benner, the North Star, and read his comments.
Psalms 75: 6-7, says exaltation comes from the north!
When I watched Expelled I thought Dawkins was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but compared to Atkins, Dawkins is a Sun amongst the stars.
What??
@@mcmanustony Repent
Amazing how emotional people get on a TH-cam thread. Atheist or Christian, it's a sure sign some people need to grow up.
Prof Atkins hubris makes him sound like an idiot.
@@mcmanustony creationism is different from intelligent design as Dr. Meyer points out at 38:32 hth
Thanks for bringing the subject in public, and to make the voice of intelligence design heard.
Atheist ignorance need to learn to behave.
God bless you.
Mr Atkins doesn't want interrupted however he may interrupt whenever he wishes..pffft. Mr Atkins is so warped in his Darwinian faith that he refuses to accept reason. I honestly believe Darwinism is one of the largest religions on the planet and it would simply make them look a lot better in these debates if they would admit it.
How are you defining religion?, the dictionary defines it as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods" it's not that sort of religion. If you just mean "they are really interested in it" like shopping is a religion or sport is a religion then ok but so what?
The theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life given the available evidence, that is the view of the vast majority of experts and that;s why it is taught. If scientists can disprove it then well done it will become accepted, nobel prizes will be awarded and we will teach the new better theory. However, intelligent design has not done that as demonstrated in the Dover trial and in the scientific peer reviewed literature.
A half literate judge, who it is now clear copied his judgement from the defendants, is not in a position to determine what is science.
need more faith to become atheist than creationist
Femi Babalola If he had ruled for creationism you wouldn't accept me saying that he was "half literate". You're butthurt I get that, the truth hurts and the truth is biological evolution is the best explanation given the available evidence and so it will continue to be taught as it works.
Adi Adrian You could be correct depending on how you define "atheist". But it takes quite a lot of faith to believe the bible was written by the creator of the universe. I'm not religious is that atheist who cares? I just cannot believe the unbelievable, I've read the bible and the books and watched debates and I just think the bible (and quran i've studied islam too) is a book written by ignorant men. Can't say much about other religions but it's clear that humans like to tell stories and that's what religions are..
well I listened to my first debate with an inarticulate brit; Dr. Atkins. He had amazingly devastating comebacks like, "that is nonsense", and "evolution did it. Evolution did it. I already said evolution did it". What, is evolution magic now? Atkins just inserts it into any gaps of knowledge without even explaining what aspect of evolutionary theory cover the gaps. Evolution is a magic word. It opens doors to research facilities automatically, and closes them automatically if you doubt it's magic power.
Atkin's is obviously past his prime; he always responds like this. You should listen to Hugh Ross and Atkins debate on Unbelievable.
@@slamrn9689 I'm tempted to do that (watching Ross vs Atkins) but I think I cannot handle couple more hours of atkins's blabber in one day -_-
@@royardianto I don't think I can finish this one.... Atkins is incredibly cringy.
Do you recognize Atkin's voice? He sang in Pink Floyd's The Wall: "You can't have your pudding if you don't eat the meat!!! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat??!!"
...
After chastising Meyer for constantly interupting (which he didn't do) Meyer gave him all the time he needed to present his idea. When Meyer then was responding and developing his ideas Atkins interupted repeatedly. I would love to hear a good debate, but I'm out of here at 14:28. Peter Atkins work on your people skills and maybe I can listen to you in the future.
Not all the way through, but Dr Atkins really comes off poorly as an elitist without an argument. Even I can see a difference between order, like lines on a beach, and information, like when the lines on the beach form words.
Peter Atkins is so faithful to evolution, because he keep on saying "evolution' though he cannot point a specific example.
mcmanustony Actually he and the others are pointing yet it is not convincing.
mcmanustony I don't really care what you are thinking of yourself dude.
mcmanustony The only thing that scares me is to equate myth to fact.
mcmanustony The evolutionary pattern that you said.
harry trasmonte totally agree i was waiting to hear one of the foremost minds of science come up with a shred of "all this evidence" he keeps referring to, but all he manages to blurt out at two phrases "don't interrupt me.." and ".. But evolution?!?!"
Atkins is such a bully. Bullies are afraid of something.
They are like that when their idiotic delusions are overshadowed by reality...one word, 'bubble'...
LazlosPlane
I think you have it backwards. This was a 2v1 in which Atkins was constantly interrupted by the other two guests. Meyer tried to monologue and steamroll over Atkins, but when Atkins interrupts to get a word in, he's a bully?
@@colinc892 I didn't see it that way. I saw Peter attempt to force an answer that he was ready to pounce on and when the answer wasn't what he was expecting he kept interrupting. Much like an attorney who is paid to make the audience believe his point of view by trying to drive and define the other point of view. Stephen is saying that the 'science is not settled', so why shut out something that cannot be proven or disproven.
Stephen is an intelligent thinking gentleman. Peter is just an intelligent peter.
@@fredresz7773
"I saw Peter attempt to force an answer that he was ready to pounce on and when the answer wasn't what he was expecting he kept interrupting"
Could you explain this a little better for me. What answer are you referring to?
" Much like an attorney who is paid to make the audience believe his point of view by trying to drive and define the other point of view. "
The same could be said for Stephen and Mark, both of whom got more time to speak than Atkins.
" Stephen is saying that the 'science is not settled', so why shut out something that cannot be proven or disproven."
Stephen is claiming that genetic information can only come from a mind, which is an unsubstantiated claim. He also points to gaps in the fossil record and claims they are insurmountable obstacles for evolution, which they are not.
Now Atkins did a piss poor job of responding to these claims. This talk degenerated into basically Atkins saying "nuh, uh," and Stephen saying "yea, huh." Neither offered any real support for their points. I have to agree with you that Stephen was better tempered, but I do think that he interrupted Atkins quite a bit.
If you'd like to understand why Atkins is probably more cantankerous, picture the following scenario. Picture a group of astronomers who regular debate the physics of how the earth revolves around the sun and maintains its orbit. The vast majority agree however that the laws of physics guide the orbit of the earth, except for a very small minority of astronomers who claim the world is held up on the back of a massive turtle. Now many of these astronomers have private religious beliefs that involve a world turtle of some sort, so they accuse the majority of astronomers who do not share in that belief of being biased against that possibility. They argue that the science isn't settled, and there is censorship when they are not taken seriously. Some even imply there is a conspiracy on the part of the "naturalists" who turn to the laws of physics and a priori discount the possibility of a world turtle because they fear the implications. Meanwhile, scientists from the majority group sometimes get irritated that this smaller group typically only try to poke holes in gravity and other physics rather than provide any positive evidence of the world turtle.
The above might sound crazy, but even if you do not agree with it, that is exactly how scientists like atkins feel from their perspective. If you were one of the majority astronomers, you would get irritable when the world turtle astronomers then turn to calling it an "agent" that holds up the earth, and misquote leading "naturalist" astronomers and make unsubstantiated claims.
Or being paid...
For anyone wanting to know the truth about the origin of life, watch youtube video Dr James Tour: the origin of life has not been explained. It is factual and honest. Dr Tour has offered to challenge anyone on the topic and no takers. He is highly rated chemist possibly the best in his field. He was SCIENTIST of the year a few years ago. Written 112 reviewed paper and a leader in nano technology.
I am proud to say I am following Sir Stephen Meyer for quite few years now and my understanding is he has developed most convincing arguments in favour of ID and God's existence in recent times, keep doing the great work sir!! the movie they are talking about here is really worth watching!!
@@mcmanustony
The one that said that your mum couldn't possibly be the result of an accident of slime.
54:40 shows how bias the host is against Meyer. I appreciate Meyer's willingness to take on hostile debates in environments like this one time and time again.
The debate was three against one, the one being Atkins. I support Meyer, but that's just the truth.
It’s a Christian podcast. I genuinely do not know why he would be biased against the Christian
The documentary 'Expelled' should be compulsory viewing in all public schools. Kids should be aware of the corruption and bias in the scientific club/community and shouldn't suppress info regarding the financial motivation and mindset that perpetuates this corruption.
Thanks for airing this video. People need to think about this issue of silencing folks who disagree with "mainstream" views in science, politics, and the medical field. Where there is no room for disagreement, the search for truth is squeezed out of view.
Atkins is conflating intellectual laziness with intellectual honesty.
I think you make a good point. Intellectual laziness is not a charge that fits Stephen Meyer, only used to insult him. Prof. Atkins tried to be majesterial in his assertions, but he made no convincing counter-argument, he didn't enhance his reputation as a scientist by arguing against freedom of scientific enquiry, for science he didn't like.
I know I make a lot of comments but I am a mathematician. I totally believed in evolution for decades until I took a course in logic and debating. A professor that taughtme how to make logical arguments in debates proved to me that there had to be some kind of mind behind things in the beginning. Now that mind may not exist now as there is no reason that it has to, but if the universe had a beginning and there was a time when no matter or energy existed then some thinking force, that existed outside of the time and space we exist in, had to bring it into existence. The only way evolution works is if matter and energy are eternal and this universe has always been here. Out of nothing nothing comes.
How did billions of lines of A,C,G,T get sequenced to produce functional information? Atkins: Evolution did it!
Peter Atkins: "Evolution did it, Evolution did it, Evolution did it, Evolution did it,"
Why not, evolution did everything! It can create Atkins, why not everything?
And it’s supported by evidence
Lol evolution does produce a$$🍩 the rest are intelligently designed .😂😂😂😂
Evolution of the gaps
@@DJRickard2010 if you have EVIDENCE OF Darwinian EVOLUTION will you EXPLAIN please as there is no know mechanism as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You will earn a Noble prize when you explain how it works as you are the only person who knows the mechanism. Well done. I wait with bated breath for you information.
The thing that frustrated me about this whole discussion is that every time Steven Meyer stated that only intelligence can account for complexity and specificity in information, Atkins would respond and say "No it isn't, no it isn't" Why didn't Meyers just ask him to give an example of that type of information arising spontaneously? Atkins would not have been able to answer the question and the folly of his position would have been made evident.
51:12 Stephen asks: Why is it not also intellectually lazy to just assume that some materialistic process is responsible [for evolution], whatever the evidence?
Peter's answer: [crickets chirping]... because... um... let me collect my thoughts on that.
Peter then goes on to attempt massive damage control lol
Well said
I'll give you the answer. Materialistic answer is the only answer that can be tested. While non-materialistic answers cannot be tested. The latter can be made up easily by lazy people. While the former has to be tested by multiple people.
@@addy01001 "Uber lazy" answer. Evil-ution cannot be observed, tested, repeated or is falsifiable. Common knowledge.
Gavin Hurlimann actually evolution is the only thing that can be tested by genetics, anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography etc. ID can only be asserted. You can only say the “designer did it” and ignore all the evidence with the phrase “the designer did it that way”. I’m challenging you to give me the evidence or defend against the evidence without using or implying those two phrases.
Addy F2p the assumption of homology which underpins evolutionary theory can be tested?
...lol...Peter Atkins, in the first ten minutes, insults ID, calling it science in a cheap tuxedo, then a few seconds later, says he doesn't want this to be about insults...lol....what a jerk
The evidence for intelligent design is present.
The other side is hypothetical speculation/hypothesis.
Evidence ---> design --->-designer ---> Creator.
So simple.
A child can understand it.
SuperVt100 "A child can understand it." And that is why is so compelling. Because your answer comes from laying down and accepting the premise while out there there are people working teir asses off in order to understand how the world works
Chic01taliano hey man you really dramatize it. It's like you have a show _Dramatic Science_.
There's no romance in working oneself to death. I know, I almost did.
Einstein figured out the equation between energy and matter. The equation was e=mc2. Pretty simple.
Meyer is correct in that there is a intelligent designer behind life on Earth.
All of life was created. There is a Creator. Just because he has a name should not surprise you.
His name is Yeshua. This is translated in the Greek and transliterated into English as Jesus. He is known as the Christ which means Messiah. So in English, he is called Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. In the original Hebrew his name is Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus the Messiah or Jesus the Christ).
That is the name of God, the son of God. It should not surprise you, there is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. it is God the Son, Jesus, who appeared as a baby in a manger. Grew up to be a man.
SuperVt100 "All of life was created. There is a Creator." How do you know ?
Chic01taliano after Jesus grew up to be a man, he ministered doing many miracles. He gave proof of who he was, and he taught about the kingdom of God. .
Then he died for the sins of the world, ripping in two the veil between God and men.
So anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. He gives eternal life to all who call on his name.
Simple.
SuperVt100 You have not answered my question: How do you know ?
Atkins is incredibly smug and arrogant, condescending and clearly out of his depth when it comes to this subject. Previously he faced passionate ministers and religionists, now a real scientist who makes valid sound arguments which he sadly treats in a manner a spoilt emperor opposed to a true intellectual would.
Whenever I listen to these Brit's on evolution I get the creepy feeling they are all brothers from different mothers They sound so much alike it's uncanny and sound like deep seeded programming. They are such condescending fools.
@frankos rooni Exactly why it's a cult
Funny, I think the same thing when I hear creationists.
@@SuperEdge67 So you believe that via evolution "frogs eventually become princes" ... got it!
@@UnCustomMary_Luke10 Nobody needs to BELIEVE in evolution. They just need to accept it because it’s an evidence based fact, just like the fact that the Earth is a sphere. Tell me , are you a flat Earther, because that is the scientific equivalent of being a creationist.
At 47:50, Atkins begins to stumble about when questioned on the initial information required for life to begin.
Materialists, like Atkins, have redefined science in their own image. Namely, a thought or hypothesis can not be considered science outside of the naturalistic view - a creator MUST be excluded. Well, what if the creator is the cause regardless of your personal comfort level with that possible fact.
I'm embarrassed for Dr. Atkins. It appears he's living in the past.
Your parents didn’t waste money on your education !
ha ha really
waters above and below bla bla its a ball
@@erikhviid3189 education isn't worth it, just evolution.
@@erikhviid3189 I have degrees and phds coming out of my ass. I work in science and engineering. Atkins is a clueless dogmatic fool.
@@frankslade33 Liverty University. Sweep the floor at Boeing.
ID has no evidence. Even in biblebelt judges has told SM, that he has an empty sack.
Grow up.
All religions are incarnations of primitive superstition.
Albert Einstein (1954)
Atkins, and the art of weaponized hypocrisy. He begins by doubling down on the name calling the. Saying he isn't interested in name calling. These pretentious clowns....
Atkins' method is based upon cheap rethoric and cheap points underestimating the public trying to win on cheap arguments. We shall stand up against those kind of arguments and always follow the facts no matter who present them and where it may lead us. Atheist like Dawkns and Atkins are very close in its argumentation to religious fanatics, and are not open to new facts, theories and knowledge. Do not let an academic title rule the discussion and its results, based upon that many of the high degrees at the best academic institutions are based upon "cock sucking" - pardon my french, by I got an LL.B, an LL.M and a Juris Doctor from a three different top tier Universities, so I know the rules.
I actually wish Atkins had been given more time to speak. Calling him a bully after he got steamrolled so much isn't really fair. I enjoy listening to Atkins because it reminds me how empty and invalid atheism is.
Logan Ross
Atkins is a world class Chemist but not a Biologist but neither is Meyer,so you are talking BS
Stubadub
Atkins is a world class Chemist but not a Biologist but neither is Meyer,so you are talking BS
down to earth
Atkins is a world class Chemist but not a Biologist but neither is Meyer,so you are talking BS
Atkins cautioning folks that hes getting pissed. At ease old warrior no ones trembling at you 😆😆
What a little sweetheart. Have fun Steve🤙
It is most interesting that every evolutionary scientist Stephen Meyer debates, says that there is an obvious bias in Intelligent Design. During the debate, they always seem to reveal their own obvious biases concerning Darwinian evolution. They say that Intelligent Design is full of assumptions, while revealing their own assumptions concerning the Darwinian evolutionary model. Fascinating indeed!
Aaron Collins ...And resorting to ad hominem attacks points out Peter Atkins' "intellectual laziness." Frankly, I didn't hear any concrete examples of how macro evolution is "proven," only the assertion that it must be, and so it is.
***** I can't express how much joy I am experiencing in knowing that you are doing well, as well as increasing your knowledge in God's creation. Stephen Meyer is a scientist of great knowledge, as well as an outstanding man of God. Are their any christian scientists that you can recommend?
AlmightyDeity an I are still going at it. With the knowledge I am gaining day by day, I'm sure he knows that he is fighting a losing battle.
I will send you a list of people to look up on TH-cam. I hope that you will do the same.
God bless!!!
Let Us Gather... how macro evolution is "proven," only the assertion that it must be, and so it is.
Yes I noticed Peter did that as well & its rather circular and self refuting, i.e. evolution caused the appearance of information in DNA because evolution is true!!!
Aaron Collins Are you aware of antibiotics resistance or flu vaccine? Well that "stuff" comes from thorough studies about evolution. Amen |-_-|
Chic01taliano LOL..... antibiotics and flu vaccines are sound science, verifiable through the scientific method. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Flu vaccines are certain dead bacteria given via injections so that the body can naturally build immunity to those certain injected bacteria. Evolution has nothing to do with this process.
Evolution does have a problem with answering the age old question of how any complex organism could have survived without an immune system being in place to protect it in the first place. HIV is a perfect example. The virus does not kill anyone; all it does is leave it's host defenseless against all of the other infections common to all lifeforms.
Stephen Meyer is the smartest person I’ve ever encountered. When he talks I am mesmerized and blown away.
I understand you, I like listening to the man talk even when I don't understand what he's talking about.
He's just so well-spoken, stays on topic, and always has a good answer or a rebuttal.
Atkins starts out saying he prefers to get into name calling, then spends the entire debate spewing ad hominums and producing straw men.He also retorts "dont distort my position" after doing nothing but that to Meyer the whole debate.
Why anyone debates Atkins anymore is a mystery. Atkins sounds like most creationists.
Such people always project what they do onto others so it's no surprise. In fact that is one of the traits of evil people; they project what they do onto others then condemn the other.
Atkins: "And to teach that to children is child abuse.". What? He's channeling Dawkins. Birds of a feather.
Brandon Ward Denying the scientific facts is a type of child abuse.
Its really sad that people who have never even studied the science, have no problem denying it.
Funny how you whine and complain about people not reading Meyer, when you yourself haven't ever read a Biology textbook.
+Brandon Ward
A lack of originality and an exaggeraed sense of importance about their views.
odinata "Denying the scientific facts is a type of child abuse."
It's been up here since August last year and I didn't notice. Shame on me.
But let's analyze this a bit. It's child abuse to deny science facts. Which science facts? If we deny that there's gravity, is that child abuse? How so? OK, so I can see how a denial of the existence of gravity could be child abuse if we are parents, but what if we have no contact with children? Then what?
But that's an easy one. How about if we deny say, string theory? A lot of scientists believe that string theory is factual, while others do not. So those who reject string theory are child abusers, and those who don't are not?
This is so, because science doesn't so much deal in facts, but in hypotheses and theory, and they can change as new data is generated or discovered.
Today, all biologists accept that "evolution" is fact. However, if you define evolution more specifically as "Darwinian" evolution; random mutation acting on natural selection, there are scientists who now believe that it is less "natural selection," and more "genetic drift." You have two varying views, who both believe that these are facts. You have other evolution theories as well. Who are the child abusers among them?
What specific science facts, for example, has Stephen Meyer denied, which would make him a child abuser?
It's a pretty preposterous assertion, then, isn't it?
vicachcoup I think you nailed it. These are people who will attempt to force science, particularly biology, to remain stagnant for the next 150 years. But of course, they won't be successful, because there's such a thing in biology as "death."
Brandon Ward
Now listen, if you're going to actually force him/her to specifically define what it is that they mean by their generalized statement, then they're just not going to play. After all, that's what pop-author, alleged research scientist and self-appointed Pope of the "New Atheist" movement Richard Dawkins has taught them to do!
Boy Mr. Atkins apparently reserves the right to interrupt at will but bristles when Mr. Meyer answers him.
Atkins doesn't understand entropy either.
He is a chemist. Of course he does.
Entropy is not disorder, Atkin taught me that through his book but he got it wrong here
I’m here after hearing this debate mentioned in the Rogan interview.
Good debate. Im glad Stephen posted this & he usually shares competing views with his audience which i think is a great thing. We need to remember that Stephen's work & the ID field in general is an ongoing process of discovery & knowledge. We must debate & test theories to their absolute limit because this tells us what we are lacking & need to work on etc.
From my own experience & observation i have noted many of Stephen's followers accepting the theory almost on blind faith e.g. they saw a lecture & it changed their life, "t just makes sense" etc - be very careful of this because you dont know what you dont know & thus its easy to agree with anything. Its like somebody being ignorant to science & persuaded by flat earth videos - it makes perfect sense to them because they lack a certain understanding.
I am a fan of Stephen's work & it has made me re-evaluate many of my previous assumptions, but that doesnt mean we should immediately stop listening to the counter arguments. Thtas the world of academia & people will test your theory to its breaking point - thats normal & thats why i say Stephen publishing debates is extremely useful & transparent
Meyer simply outclassed this poor man. This was no real debate. Meyer taught a class and Atkins couldn't engage him.
Intelligent design does not close the door on further exploration, that is like saying because you know a rocket has been designed there is nothing more to be learned about rocket science ? faulty logic and reasoning by Peter Atkins.
+John Smith It appears that Meyers and Behe have both found evidence for the identity of the intelligent Agent. Well how did they do that and did they use the same methodology to determine the identity of the Agent? If you have more data on "Discovering the Intelligent Agent", I would like to know what that is?
How can Peter Atkins keep claiming "absolute nonsense" whenever Stephen Meyer states that information is indicative of ID? Surely this hypothesis is in fact the entire foundation that holds the various SETI programs in place, isn't it? The search for structured information coming from space will prove that we are not alone and there is another intelligent life form out there somewhere trying to communicate. Does Peter Antkins deride this area of scientific research and discovery as well?
Intelligent design is a supposition based on intellectual laziness and a closed mind resistant to scientific methods.
However i am humble enough to have an open mind to consider mulitiple completing hypotheses that verifies my materialist view is the only correct view
If nothing can come up with life, so nothing is more powerful than the most brilliant human mind.
Still haven't been able to listen to the whole video of this yet as Peter Atkins rude obnoxious attitude just makes me want to muzzle the guy.
Peter talks about child abuse yet is happy to hurl abusive insult after abusive insult failing to realize that if he were to do the same to any child he was raising he would also in contempt of child abuse himself.
I often wonder if someone like Peter is a theist in disguise as he really does make atheists look very embarrasing by his mere attitude alone.
Atkins needs to be muzzled. At the very least he should retire & stop embarrassing the scientific community.
Dr. Atkins advanced the rationality of the ID cause.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
The arrogance of Atkins is astounding! You can hear him snear at Dr. Meyer. The scientific reality of Intelligent Design will come out when snobs like this have finally gone!
@@mcmanustony you are disgusting. Issac Newton said himself "Atheism Is so senseless". Atkin is a closed minded quack. Meyer is an advocate for open minded science. A great scientist.
@@psynergy007 Isaac Newton died 500 years ago. Back then everyone was religious. Newton also believed in alchemy. If he was alive today Newton would almost certainly be an atheist.
@@SuperEdge67 nonsense. Today in the modern world we hardly know more than the 17th century.
@@psynergy007 ‘we hardly know more than the 17th century’…….one of the silliest things ever said on TH-cam.
@@SuperEdge67 no, really, we literally know next to nothing about existence and life.
I'm not at all bothered by the "debate" because the truth will bubble to the surface.
When the debate is over, we will know the truth.
Meanwhile, enjoy !
Atkins: “DNA has grown through evolution.”
Meyer: “That’s pure assertion.”
Atkins: “ wHaT d’you MeAn iTs pure AsSertion? 🤬” 🤡
He starts his argument by stating “It happened my way. Believe it” 🤦🏻♂️
Damn, if the hypothesis that Meyer is putting forward was so “intellectually lazy”, I’d love to see what how many more “interesting questions” a rigorous non-Darwinian hypothesis can pose for the Darwinist.
I love how Atkins declared his desire for a serious debate at the beginning of this conversation, yet spent his entire time with ad hominem attacks and platitudinous statements throughout the rest of the conversation.
I think Atkins just needs a bit of love.
Settings the arguments aside, you can tell he’s a very bitter man.
Stephens mannerisms are top-notch and his got a valid scientific argument which is completely being dismissed only for the reason that it implies a creator.
But fornhim, love arises in the brain from chemicals. Then why protest if someone or some animal tries to harm him or his family. He should just sit and watch if his grandchild is being mauled by a dog. Afterall, its just chemicals and chance at play.
hmm, Atkins looks like someone who lived in Germany in the 1930 -1945.
Although I believe ID is the better explanation, I was disappointed with Justin's moderation of this debate. There were moments that Prof Atkins should've been given more time to make his case. I think hearing his objections would've made his position that much more clearly foolish. I really liked Stephen's response to the "intellectually lazy" remark and again, Atkins wasn't given the space to respond more fully. Was Justin showing Atkins Christian charity by keeping him from totally embarrassing himself?
The top of the reasoning from evolutionists, when simplifed, is "Evolution is a fact, therefore evolution is a fact." Example, Atkins pointed out that there is a natural process that generates information. ----> My ears are opened and I am excited to hear what it is. ---> Atkin: It's Evolution. ----> Me: Facepalm. Circular reasoning again... Evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact?!?!
Evolution is a fact so it must happen.
Carl Sagan: “the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together” ... regardless by what or whom, you just can't deny it is designed; When you see a car or a piece of furniture, you know for sure someone designed and created it, why would that be any different looking at an orchid, or a dragonfly
Quoting Sagan to promote creationism. What nerve you have.
@jiin5993 Whats wring with having an open mind...study both creationism and naturalism. Examine both and then decide for yourself. Remember, at the end of the day, only you can chart your destiny.
This was embarrassing, Atkins actually sounded senile.
Dr Atkins is not the first to confuse order with information. (that is 'functionally specified' information, such as the digital code found in DNA.)
While lawlike necessity produces dramatic structures, from the far flung wheeling galaxies, to crystals, and to the swirling vortex in my bath, it has yet to come up with a good limerick.
ref: 10:00
Asking the question, 'Did an intelligent agent do this?' (or concluding that it has, most likely done it), does not end science. We would simply go on to explore the nature of the agent scientifically. One more thing to my atheist and materialist friends; Why all the name-calling and insults? I think that it's because usually they present argument via slur.
Emperor with no clothes ........ here is where they *&$$ in the foot. They have to explain everything in materialistic natural processes so they are stuck in a loop we on the other hand see the genius behind the design and they claim us backward
When any government or private enterprise decides to build a brand new city with all the necessary infrastructure inbuilt would
A) the citizens be moved or asked to take up residency once all the structers were in place or
B) ask the citizens to move whilst the city was being built .
This question is for ID .mr Meyers .